Upload
hoangdieu
View
225
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report Written and Performed By:
Isaac L. Howard - Mississippi State University
Miriam E. Smith - Mississippi State University
Chris L. Saucier - Mississippi State University
Thomas D. White - Mississippi State University
SERRI Report 70015-002
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop
SERRI Project: Increasing Community Disaster Resilience Through Targeted
Strengthening of Critical Infrastructure
Project Principal Investigator: Isaac L. Howard, PhD
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under U.S. Department of Energy Interagency Agreement 43WT10301. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
i
SERRI Report 70015-002
SERRI Project: Increasing Community Disaster Resilience
Through Targeted Strengthening of Critical Infrastructure
2008 GEOTEXTILE TUBES WORKSHOP
Written By:
Isaac L. Howard, PhD - Mississippi State University Miriam E. Smith, PhD, PE - Mississippi State University Chris L. Saucier, PhD, PE - Mississippi State University Thomas D. White, PhD, PE - Mississippi State University
Date Published:
October 2009
Prepared for U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Under U.S. Department of Energy Interagency Agreement 43WT10301
Prepared by OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6283 managed by
UT-BATTELLE, LLC for the
U.S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725
ii
Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No.
SERRI Report 70015-002 2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle 2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop
5. Report Date October 12, 2009
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) Isaac L. Howard, PhD, Assistant Professor, Mississippi State University Miriam Smith, PhD, PE, Research Assistant Professor, Miss. State Univ. Chris L. Saucier, PhD, PE, Assistant Professor, Mississippi State University Thomas D. White, PhD, PE, Professor, Mississippi State University
8. Performing Organization Report No. CMRC 09-3
9. Performing Organizations Name and Address Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept. 501 Hardy Road: P O Box 9546 Mississippi State, MS 39762
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
11. Contract or Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Agencies Names and Addresses
U. S. Department of Homeland Security US Army Corps of Engineers Science and Technology Directorate Research and Development Ctr Washington, DC 20528 Coastal & Hydraulics Lab
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept. and Office of Research and Economic Development 501 Hardy Road: P O Box 9546 Mississippi State, MS 39762
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report January 2008 to April 2009
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Supplementary Notes: Work was performed for Mississippi State University research project titled: Increasing Community Disaster Resilience Through Targeted Strengthening of Critical Infrastructure. The project number assigned to the work by the sponsor was 70015. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funded the Southeast Regional Research Initiative (SERRI), which provided the support of the overall research effort. This report is Volume II in a series of reports performed as part of this research effort. Work related to Volume II was also funded by the US Army Corps of Engineers and Mississippi State University.
16. Abstract The objective of this report was to disseminate information from the 2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop held at Mississippi State University. A group of experts were invited to present past and present work in which they were/are involved related to the use of geotextile tubes. The participants were also asked to participate in two panel discussions led by a member of the research team. One panel discussion pertained to the use of geotextile tubes for construction of walls in a flooded area while the other dealt with rapidly dewatering fine grained soil with geotextile tubes. This report contains summary information written by the Mississippi State University research team and the full presentations made by the invited participants.
17. Key Words Flooding, Disaster Recovery, Geotextile Tubes, Dewatering, Walls, Workshop
18. Distribution Statement TBD
19. Security Classif. (of this report) TBD
20. Security Classif. (of this page) TBD
21. No. of Pages 367
22. Price
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………….vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF GEOTEXTILE TUBES………………………………………….3 3.0 CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS SUMMARIES………………………………….4 3.1 Analysis and Design………………………………………………………………………4
3.2 Structural Applications……………………………………………………………………6
3.3 Dewatering………………………………………………………………………………...8
3.4 QA and QC of Geosynthetics and Geotextile Tubes…………………………………….10
3.5 Case Histories……………………………………………………………………………10
4.0 PANEL DISCUSSIONS………………………………………………………………..13 4.1 Panel Discussion: Structural Applications……………………………………………….13
4.2 Panel Discussion: Dewatering Applications……………………………………………..17
5.0 SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS…………………………………………..17 5.1 Summary of Findings for Structural Applications…………………………………….....19
5.2 Summary of Findings for Dewatering Applications……………………………………..21 6.0 PRESENTATIONS GIVEN BY INVITED PARTICIPANTS………………………22 6.1 Geotextile Tubes Workshop: Statement of Workshop Goals……………………………23 (Isaac L. Howard, PhD)
6.2 Laboratory Study on the Role of Polymers in Rapid Dewatering……………………….33 (Shobha K. Bhatia, PhD)
6.3 Mainstreaming Geotextile Tube Implementation………………………………………..55 (Barry R. Christopher, PhD, PE)
6.4 Geotextile Tubes, Design, Applications and Case Histories…………………………….68 (Jack Fowler, PhD, PE)
6.5 Stability of Geotubes and Research Needs……………………………………………..142 (Mohammed A. Gabr, PhD)
iv
6.6 Use of Poor Quality Geo-Material in Geotextile Tubes for ……………………………160 Structural Applications (Douglas A. Gaffney, PE)
6.7 Chemical Treatment of Dredged Soils………………………………………………….187 (Dewey W. Hunter)
6.8 Specification and Testing of Geotextile Tubes…………………………………………201 (George R. Koerner, PhD, CQA)
6.9 Analysis and Design of Geotextile Tubes………………………………………………235 (Dov Leshchinsky, PhD)
6.10 Installation and Performance of Geotextile Tubes……………………………………...251 (Nate Lovelace)
6.11 HSARPA-SERRI Water-Filled Technologies for Rapid Repair……………………….267 of Levee Breaches (Don Resio, PhD)
6.12 Geotubes for Structural Applications…………………………………………………...287 (Ed Trainer)
6.13 Geotubes for Dewatering Applications…………………………………………………318 (Ed Trainer)
6.14 Disposal of Coal Mine Slurry Using Geosynthetic Containers………………………...342 at North River Mine in Berry, Alabama (Ed Trainer)
v
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank everyone who was involved with the 2008 Geotextile Tubes
Workshop. Partial funding for the workshop was provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers
Engineer Research and Development Center Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory due to the
efforts of Dr. Donald T. Resio. Partial funding for the workshop was also provided by
Mississippi State University’s Office of Research and Economic Development due to the efforts
of Dr. Kirk Schulz. These two entities provided all funding necessary for the workshop and the
authors are very grateful.
The authors are also grateful for the financial support provided by the SERRI program under
Task Order 4000064719. Funding for the workshop was not included in the task order, but all
other efforts related to this multiple part research program were provided. In addition, due
gratitude is extended to everyone employed at DHS and ORNL who worked diligently with the
authors to make this project a success. A great deal of the success of this research can be
attributed to the efforts of DHS and ORNL personnel.
A list of invited participants is provided within the report. The authors are indebted to these
individuals for their selfless contributions to this effort. Ms. Walaa Badran (Graduate Research
Assistant) of Mississippi State University is owed thanks for her countless efforts in formatting
of the invited participant presentation slides. Dr. Sandra Harpole (Associate Vice President for
Research), Dr. Donna Reese (Associate Dean of Bagley College of Engineering), and Dr. Dennis
Truax (Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Head) aided in the success of the
workshop by speaking at the workshop and providing general assistance, which is greatly
appreciated.
Dr. Mohammed A. Gabr of North Carolina State University and Dewey W. Hunter of Ciba
Corporation are owed special thanks for their courteously review of this report. The positive
feedback provided was important to the successful completion of this document.
1.0 INTRODUCTION The 2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was held at Mississippi State University November 17
through 19 of 2008. The workshop was cosponsored by: 1) Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering (CEE) and Office of Research and Economic Development at
Mississippi State University (MSU); and 2) Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL) of the US
Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC). The workshop
was held as part of a larger research effort, which is described in the following paragraph.
The work presented in this report was developed in partial fulfillment of the requirements of
Task Order 4000064719 issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through its
Southeast Regional Research Initiative (SERRI) program administered by UT-Battelle at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The research was proposed by
members of the CEE department to SERRI in a document dated 1 June 2007. The proposed
research was authorized by UT-Battelle in its task order dated 10 December 2007. This task
order included a scope of work defined through joint discussions between MSU and SERRI.
Work on the project was initiated on 1 January 2008.
The work presented in this document is stand alone in the sense that it fully describes the 2008
Geotextile Tubes Workshop, but is a complimentary document in that the purpose of the
workshop was to gain information for use within other portions of Task Order 4000064719. The
general objectives of the entire project were to investigate means for rapidly using on-site
materials and methods in ways that would most effectively enable local communities to rebuild
in the wake of a flooding disaster. Within this general framework, several key work components
were defined and the resulting tasks from the 9 September 2008 task order are shown below.
Task 1: Erosion Control-Erosion Protection for Earthen Levee.
Task 2: Bridge Stability-Lateral & Uplift Stability of Gravity-Supported Bridge Decks.
Task 3: Levee Breach Repair-Closure of Breaches in Flood Protection Systems.
Task 4: Pavement Characterization and Repair.
Task 5: Emergency Construction Material Development-Staging Platform Construction.
Task 6: Fresh Water Reservoir-Restoration of Fresh Water Supplies.
1
The division of the research effort into the tasks shown above was essentially an internal work
division created at MSU. It is useful for providing a context of the research described in this
report and other reports developed during the research effort. It also allowed the work to be
broken into manageable portions so that key components could be reported in separate volumes
to allow readers to obtain only the work related to their needs. The work contained herein is
directly associated with Tasks 5 and 6. This report is the second deliverable item of the research
project, hence the designation of the report as SERRI Report 70015-002 of Task Order
4000064719. Work related to Task 6 was also submitted in SERRI Report 70015-003; these two
reports represent full completion of Task 6. Full completion of Task 5 will be presented in
subsequent reports.
Attendance and participation at the workshop was by invitation only. Participants included (in
alphabetical order) those listed below. In addition to those named multiple MSU administrators,
staff, and students were also in attendance.
Dr. Shobha K. Bhatia, Syracuse University
Dr. Barry R. Christopher, Christopher Consultants (Provided Presentation but was unable
to attend workshop due to illness)
Ms. Jody Dendurent, TenCate Geosynthetics
Dr. Jack Fowler, Geotec Associates
Dr. Isaac L. Howard, Mississippi State University
Dr. Mohammed A. Gabr, North Carolina State University,
Mr. Douglas A. Gaffney, Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Ed Herman, US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District
Mr. Dewey W. Hunter, NAFTA Dredging, Ciba Corporation
Dr. George R. Koerner, Geosynthetic Institute (GSI)
Dr. Dov Leshchinsky, University of Delaware
Mr. Nate Lovelace, US Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District
Mr. Brian Mennes, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Dr. Don Resio, USACE Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
Dr. Chris L. Saucier, Mississippi State University
2
Dr. Miriam Smith, Mississippi State University
Mr. Benjamin Thomas Jr., Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Mr. Ed Trainer, TenCate Geotube
Dr. Thomas D. White, Mississippi State University
This report only presents information from the 2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop; this report is
not a literature review, nor does it present any research results related to other portions of this
project. This report fully addresses deliverable Task 6d, which is to: organize a roundtable
workshop to discuss ideas and experiences related to rapid development of underwater walls
using geotextile tubes and to disseminate the best approach to rapidly design and construct
geotextile tube walls for a fresh water reservoir. In addition the report provides information
related to dewatering and construction of walls which was valuable information used in
completion of Tasks 5d and 5g.
A brief description of geotextile tube technology is provided in Section 2. Summaries of the
workshop presentations are included in Section 3. Information shared during the workshop panel
discussions is summarized in Section 4. Section 5 discusses workshop findings as interpreted by
the research team and summarizes the workshop as a whole. Finally, the full presentations given
by the invited participants are provided in Section 6.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF GEOTEXTILE TUBES
Geotextile tubes are manufactured by sewing together multiple sheets of geotextiles (typically
woven) using polyester or polypropylene fabrics to create an enclosed tube. Tubes constructed
of nonwoven geotextiles are not common in the US, but are used more frequently in Europe.
Geotextile tubes may be filled with sand, dredged material, water, and in some cases, light-
weight slurry. Geotextile tubes are similar in concept to geotextile bags, geotextile containers,
and geomembrane tubes. Trademarked names for various types of geotextile tubes and similar
structures include Geotube®, Geobag®, Geocontainer®, WaterStructures®, and AquaDam®.
Geotextile tubes are factory manufactured with a range of dimensions. Typical circumferences
are between 4.57 to 18.29 m (other circumferences manufactured) and typical lengths are 61 m
3
or less. Geotextile tubes may be placed individually or stacked. They have been used in a
variety of Civil Engineering applications. Applications of geotextile tubes can typically be
broken up into two categories: (1) structural applications, and (2) dewatering applications. In
structural applications, geotextile tubes have been used as dikes or breakwaters for the
prevention of beach erosion and the protection of coastal infrastructure. They have also been
used for slope protection, to prevent scour under bridge piers and other structures, and to protect
tunnels and underwater pipelines. Structural tubes are typically engineered to resist short and
long term forces.
Geotextile tubes have been used to dewater dredged materials and contain contaminated
materials. In such cases, the dredged and/or contaminated material is pumped into the tube,
which acts as a confining mechanism. As the liquid escapes from the tube, solid particles are
trapped inside. The pumping process is repeated (in some cases) until the tube is full.
Eventually, the solids can be handled as relatively dry material, increasing options for
transportation and disposal.
3.0 CONFERENCE PRESENTATION SUMMARIES
Both major application categories (structural applications and dewatering) were of interest to the
research conducted under Task Order 4000064719. The use of geotextile tubes for structural
applications was slightly favored when planning the workshop, but dewatering applications were
significantly represented. In the remainder of this section, brief highlights of the workshop
presentations are given as interpreted by the report authors and organized according to the
following topics: (1) analysis and design of geotextile tubes, (2) use of geotextile tubes for
structural applications, (3) use of geotextile tubes for dewatering applications, (4) quality-
assurance and quality-control of geotextile tubes, and (5) case histories. Refer to Chapter 6 for
the complete presentations given by the invited participants.
3.1 Analysis and Design
Dr. Leshchinsky (Section 6.9) provided an overview of a self developed design method for
geotextile tubes. The method assumes a non-yielding foundation, and is based largely on
material from the references provided at the beginning of the presentation. One objective in
4
design of a geosynthetic tube is to evaluate the post-filled geometry of the tube, which is
correlated to the storage capacity and required strength of the geosynthetic material. It was noted
that the post-filled height of a geotextile tube is very difficult to control if the tube is filled in a
pressurized condition. However, the height is more easily controlled if the tube is filled with
soil. In some cases, tube height may be increased if the tube is placed in a confining trench.
Dr. Leshchinsky has developed a Windows-based computer program called GeoCops (original
version was DOS based) that may be used to evaluate the geometry of a filled geosynthetic tube.
He provided a brief overview of the mathematical formulation behind GeoCops, and
demonstrated that the results of GeoCops provide a good match to experimental data. Additional
information on GeoCops is available from the developer upon request.
Construction sequencing and seam strength were stated to be the two most critical factors in
geotextile tube design (structural design with geotextile tubes poses additional challenges).
During filling, fluid is pumped into the tubes under pressure. Geotextile tubes are typically
constructed of medium to high strength geotextile material and as a result, have low efficiency
seam strengths. If fluid pressure is too high, seam failure may occur. A reduction factor of 45 to
50% should be applied to design geotextile strengths to take into account possible seam failures.
Dr. Fowler (Section 6.4) provides consulting services for geotextile tube design and construction.
He uses a software program called GETube Design to calculate fabric stresses during the critical
time of filling and installation when the fill material is fluid. In his presentation, Dr. Fowler
provided an overview of various dredging and geotextile tube filling methods for both structural
and dewatering applications.
Dr. Gabr (Section 6.5) presented an overview of currently available design methods for
geotextile tubes, including the method presented by Dr. Leshchinsky. He also provided an
extensive list of references regarding the design of geotextile tubes, which may be found at the
end of Section 6.5. It was emphasized that there is a significant lack of well-documented design
procedures for geotextile tubes in the literature.
5
Dr. Gabr discussed design procedures that evaluate the geotextile tubes internal stability during
filling and during the lifetime of the tube, as well as the tubes external hydrodynamical stability.
One significant issue in design includes determining the hydrodynamic pressures both on the
front and the back of the tube when they are used in coastal protection applications. Dr. Gabr
presented two references for evaluating hydrodynamic pressures (i.e. Shin and Oh 2007; Liu
1981; see Section 6.5) but stressed that more research is needed. It was noted that in many cases
the assumption that geotextile tubes are rigid bodies is made when in fact they are not rigid
bodies. It was also stated that external stability calculations are performed assuming geotextile
tubes are rigid bodies.
Mr. Lovelace (Section 6.10) provided practical factors to be considered in design and
construction using geotextile tubes. He pointed out that schedule (and thus cost) is strongly
affected by general climate, tidal variations, seasonal rains, and seasonal winds that can cause
construction to be more difficult. Along these lines, run-off should be controlled to avoid
constructing in the wet. The foundation for the tube is critical and in some cases, a foundation
must first be constructed. A mild trench or “cradle” in the foundation will help prevent
geotextile tube rollover. Another critical design factor for routine applications is the scour tube,
which, if heavy enough, may be used to tie off the main tube. During construction, care should
be taken when terminating the tubes; damage often begins at the end of the tube and progresses
along the length of the tube. For long-term applications, it is critical that adequate fill be placed
on top of the geotextile tubes. Mr. Lovelace recommended constructing a “test tube” whenever
possible to confirm both the expertise of the installer and the installation process. This
recommendation aligns with other comments regarding the need to ensure the methods used are
appropriate and contractors are qualified.
3.2 Structural Applications
Both Mr. Trainer (Section 6.12) and Dr. Fowler (Section 6.4) discussed several applications and
case histories of geotextile tubes used for structural applications. Marine applications of
geotextile tubes include but are not limited to:
Core of a sand dune
Core of rip rap breakwaters
6
Core of rip rap jetties
Underwater structures
Diversion dikes
Dredge material containment
Mr. Gaffney (Section 6.6) discussed the use of poor-quality material in geotextile tubes designed
for structural purposes. “Poor” quality materials are typically considered to be low-strength fine-
grained soils such as silts and clays and are often cohesive. These poor quality materials are
commonly used when tubes are filled with dredged material. Cohesive materials within the
tubes undergo consolidation and become denser with time. Waves and currents on the tubes
may pull fines out of the tubes, an erosive process termed “piping.” Piping is worse for
uniformly graded fine-grained soils.
Mr. Gaffney discussed a project in which geotextile tubes were used for emergency coastal
erosion control in New Jersey. For this project, approximately 275 linear meters of geotextile
tube was constructed in 1997 using imported sand at a cost of about $163,000. Mr. Gaffney also
discussed an ecosystem restoration project on Drakes Creek in Tennessee developed by the US
Army Corps of Engineers, and the case history of the Nyack Municipal Marina on the Hudson
River. More details on these projects can be found in Section 3.5.
Mr. Trainer emphasized that for sand dune protection, a scour apron is necessary on both sides of
the main structural tube. The apron should be taut on the seaward side of tubes in order to
dissipate wave energy. Similar to Mr. Lovelace, Mr. Trainer pointed out that a high volume of
water escapes the tubes during pumping and consolidation when using sand, and that the
escaping water can erode nearby soil. The run-off can be controlled with scour aprons.
A presentation provided by Dr. Christopher indicated widespread acceptance of viable new
technologies require excessive time. Many non-technical issues were noted regarding
implementation of geotextile tubes in a variety of structurally oriented applications within the
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2). They included: 1) lack of knowledge about the
7
technology; 2) lack of policies to encourage new technology use; 3) lack of qualified contractors,
personnel, materials, and equipment; and 4) lack of profit or return on investment.
3.3 Dewatering
Geotextile tubes are often used to dewater fine-grained sediments. With time, water escapes the
geotextile tubes and as a result, the shapes of the tubes change. Dr. Fowler listed factors for
estimating consolidation, bulking, and shrinkage: (1) in-situ density, percent solids, or moisture
content of the fill material prior to dewatering, (2) in-situ density or percent solids or moisture
content of the fill material after dewatering (target value), (3) gradation and/or Atterberg Limits
(LL, PL, & PI) of the fill material, (4) settling time, and (5) polymer requirements. The bulking
and shrinking of the fill material varies based on dredging scenarios and the properties of the fill.
Dr. Fowler discussed several dewatering case histories, which are presented in Section 6.4.
Mr. Hunter (Section 6.7) discussed the chemistry and use of polymers in treating fine-grained
sediments dewatered within geotextile tubes. Polymers are only effective for soils such as silts
and clays (soils that pass the No. 200 sieve). Chemical treatment may be used on problematic
sediments (i.e. contaminated soils) and improve dewatering process efficiency. It was noted that
Ciba manufacturers on the order of 200 flocculants. There are several ways in which the
dewatering process is improved through the use of polymers. Polymers may be used to improve
the solids-liquid separation with time. As a result, the amount of water discharged during the
dewatering process is increased. Finally, polymers improve the solids removal efficiency, or
capture rate. The capture rate is defined in Eq. 1.
In
OutInR S
SSC
(1)
Where,
CR = capture rate
SIn = solids in
SOut = solids out
8
Mr. Hunter provided test results where an organic clay sample from New Orleans (referred to in
this research as Soil 2) was tested at the Ciba laboratory in October of 2008 in the presence of
MSU research personnel. An 11.51% slurry was evaluated using TenCate’s Geotube®
Dewatering Test (GDT), which is informally referred to as a Pillow Test in some instances.
Summary details were provided by Mr. Hunter in Section 6.7, and full details will be made
available in future reports within Task Order 4000064719 related to dewatering soil.
A demonstration was performed during the workshop by Mr. Hunter using Soil 2. The
initial percent solids of the sample were 6.2% (the sample was diluted to 6.2% solids for
visualization during the demonstration). A settling column demonstration and a gravity flow
drainage test were performed. The settling column demonstration separated large quantities of
water from the solids in seconds, and immediately after the demonstration the columns were
carefully transported to the laboratory where the clean water was pumped out of the top of each
of the two columns to allow measurement of the moisture content (Eq. 2) and the percent solids
(Eq. 3). The gravity flow drainage test was performed and passed around to participants for
visualization (took only a few minutes). Thereafter, a sample was taken from the apparatus used
to perform the experiment and tested for moisture content and percent solids. The results of the
two settling column demonstrations were: 1) w% of 347 and 388; and 2) TS% of 22.4 and 20.5.
Results of the gravity flow drainage test were: 1) w% of 285; and 2) TS% of 26.0.
)100(%s
w
w
ww (2)
)100(%sw
s
ww
wTS
(3)
Where,
w% = moisture content expressed as a percentage
ww = weight of water (g)
ws = weight of solids (g)
TS% = total solids expressed as a percentage
9
Dr. Bhatia (Section 6.2) discussed on-going research being performed at Syracuse University,
which included discussion of the capture rate (Eq 1). The goal of the research is to evaluate the
rate and efficiency of the dewatering process using geotextile tubes, both with and without the
use of polymers. Specific goals of the research include: (1) evaluating the relationship between
geotextile properties, sediment characteristics, and dewatering parameters, (2) evaluating the use
of polymers for enhancing the dewatering process, and (3) assessing the suitability of test
methods in predicting field dewatering performance. The research presented consisted of
performing laboratory tests using a non-plastic silt. Preliminary conclusions and observations
include that piping of fine-grained material increases when a non-woven geotextile is used, and
that polymers are effective in decreasing piping and enhancing the dewatering process but only
up to a “critical polymer dose” level.
3.4 QA and QC of Geosynthetics and Geotextile Tubes
Dr. Koerner (Section 6.8) discussed geosynthetic material characteristics and corresponding
laboratory testing. He emphasized the leadership role of manufacturers in geotextile and
geotextile tube applications. He pointed out that project specifications generally contain check
lists on the manufacturers only; in other words, project specifications often control the quality of
geosynthetic product as a correlation to achieving desirable construction properties, but they do
not provide performance guidelines. The most commonly used geotextile tube specification is
GRI-GT10, Application Specification for “Coastal and Riverine structures,” which was
developed in 1999. Similar to Dr. Leshchinsky, Dr. Koerner noted, that the “strength” of the
tube is controlled by seam strength.
3.5 Case Histories
Field-Scale Test of Rapid Repair of Levee Breach
Dr. Resio presented results from a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sponsored research
program titled “Rapid Repair of Levee Breach” initiated in 2007. Project team members include
representatives from the US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development
Center and the private sector (Oceaneering and Kepner Plastics). Dr. Resio and his colleagues at
the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) conducted a demonstration at the U.S.
10
Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Research Service’s Hydraulic Engineering Research
Unit Laboratory in Stillwater, Oklahoma in which they used a geomembrane tube, partially filled
with water, to block a 2.43 m wide breach in a quarter scale levee. The tubes were transported
by helicopter and floated into place using the water flowing through the breach. Further research
is ongoing but according to Dr. Resio the results of the initial tests in Oklahoma are promising.
Bolivar Island, TX
Dr. Fowler discussed a case history in which polyester geotextile tubes were used for shore
protection on the Bolivar Peninsula along the Texas Coast. Approximately 5,500 linear meters
of tubes were constructed in 2000. A UV shroud was placed above the tubes to protect them
from long-term UV exposure. Dr. Fowler did note, however, that polyester was not an ideal
material for these tubes but did not elaborate. The tubes protected structures along the coast line
during Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001. Though the tubes were initially buried, they were
exposed during the storm. The tubes were successful in protecting the coast line in 2001 and as a
result, an additional 4,500 linear meters of geotextile tubes were placed. The same tube system
also protected the coast during Hurricane Ike in 2008.
Coastal Protection During Hurricane Ike
Dr. Gabr made a presentation on performance of geotextile tubes during Hurricane Ike. Nine
geotextile tubes were used to protect 12.2 km of shoreline. The tubes had circumferences of 9.14
m and lengths of 76.20 m. The factors of safety for sliding, overturning, and bearing capacity
were determined based on the assumption that the geotextile tubes were rigid bodies.
Furthermore, it was assumed that the tubes had an oval shape and that the contact width at the
base of the tube was 80% of the longest diameter. Two significant problems that developed
during and after the hurricane included: (1) erosion developed on the landward side of the tubes,
and (2) some tubes were overtopped while others were completely buried. Overall, the
geotextile tubes provided sufficient protection for landward structures.
Temporary Dam in Morocco
Mr. Trainer discussed a temporary dam constructed in Morocco using Geotube® units.
(Geotube® is the registered name held by TenCate for their geotextile tubes.) The dam was
11
approximately 70 m long. The fill height of the tubes was 3 m. The existing rock walls were
first smoothed by placing concrete. The first Geotube® unit was placed, and then the second was
placed 3 m from the first. The gap between the bottom tubes was filled with sand and then
covered with a geotextile. The third and final Geotube® unit was installed on top of the other
two units and intermediate sand. A membrane was then placed over the entire structure. Once
the dam was created, water was pumped out from one side of the dam to allow construction.
USACE Drakes Creek Restoration
Mr. Gaffney discussed an ecosystem restoration project on Drakes Creek in Tennessee for the
US Army Corps of Engineers. A U-shaped dike-contained channel was constructed using
geotextile tubes. The purpose of the channel was to increase the discharge velocity of silt-laden
stream water into a larger river. Approximately 640 linear meters of geotextile tubes, with
circumferences of 13.72 m, were constructed. The tubes were filled with dredged material which
consisted of a wide range of material from organics to silty sand to 125 mm stone. The river was
dredged to increase depth and the new river alignment provided improved habitat. The project
was constructed in 2000 and in 2008 the geotextile tube dikes remained in place and were
functional.
Nyack Municipal Marina
Mr. Gaffney made a presentation on use of tubes at the Nyack Municipal Marina on the Hudson
River. The project consisted of removing approximately 1,375 m3 of river sediment quickly and
cost-effectively in a populated setting. The dredged material consisted of plastic and organic silt
(MH and OH). Competing alternatives to the use of geotextile tubes included open air disposal
and filter presses. The material was placed in geotextile tubes and mixed with a polymer to
enhance the dewatering process. Mr. Gaffney noted that dewatering and consolidation of
dredged material occurs faster in geotextile tubes than in standard self-weight consolidation
procedures. Another benefit of using geotextile tubes for dewatering is that they are not a “batch
process.” One factor, however, to consider in river dredging problems is the vast amount of
large debris in river bottoms. At the Nyack Municipal Marina project, the dewatered/treated
sediment was subsequently mixed with lime and used in building a parking lot. The material
was stabilized with 15% lime and tested using a hand held vane shear device practically identical
12
to the shear device used in Task 5 of the research conducted by the MSU research team under
Task Order 4000064719. When asked about the hand held vane shear device, Mr. Gaffney had
no positive or negative feelings towards it.
Gaillard Island
Dr. Leshchinsky presented information on a project conducted on Gaillard Island. During the
project, moisture content data was taken along a geotextile tube. The results of the moisture
content data can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Moisture Contents within Geotextile Tube at Gaillard Island Time Location Unit Weight Moisture Content (days) (m) (g/cm3) (%) 0 0 1.25 214 70 1.19 284 140 1.17 308 30 0 1.35 127 70 1.29 153 140 1.19 286
4.0 PANEL DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Panel Discussion: Structural Applications
A safe water supply is central to the survival and recovery of flooded communities. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and World Health Organization (WHO) assume 2 liters
of water is needed per individual per day for ingestion. When water for cooking, first aid, and
sanitary needs are added to the ingestion requirements, the amount of fresh water required in a
community can easily reach 40 L per day per individual. For a community of stranded residents
(lasting days to weeks) and aid workers (lasting days to months), the reservoir required to store
an adequate fresh water supply would have to be quite large. In addition, distribution of the
water may be challenging, so that placement of the fresh water supply at specific locations to
optimize the needs of the community would address a primary need in the aftermath of a
disaster.
13
During the panel discussions, the workshop participants discussed the design issues associated
with constructing emergency reservoirs using geotextile tubes. The concept of developing a
water reservoir for a disaster area where potable water could not be trucked in was said to be a
potentially valuable concept. One example provided was an offshore location such as an island
that had been struck by a hurricane. Participants agreed that a decision tree was important to
guide the responder in making logical decisions based on the disaster, materials available,
constraints, site, and timeline. No such decision tree currently exists.
For discussion purposes a typical emergency reservoir, 3.05 m tall with dimensions of 61 m
square, and a design life of 6 months was considered. However, a floating water reservoir was
also mentioned as an option. This could be performed by taking two water filled geomembrane
tubes and attaching a geomembrane between them. Treated water could be pumped onto the
geomembrane causing it to sink below the floating perimeter.
There are many challenges associated with designing emergency reservoirs using geotextile
tubes. These challenges are discussed in the following paragraphs. Further research into the
applications and design of such reservoirs is being performed at Mississippi State University.
Planning
Large diameter geotextile tubes are not as readily available, and therefore, a reservoir would
likely be constructed from smaller stacked tubes. A minimum of three days was said to be
required to obtain standard tubes from the manufacturer in the majority of cases. It was noted
that dewatering tubes are more readily available. Special-order tubes would take longer to
obtain. According to Dr. Fowler, one water filled geomembrane tube could be filled on the order
of 3.7 m high. The overall tone of the participants seemed to favor a stacked system that did not
rely on a single tube that was very tall, regardless of the fill material. For stacked flexible tubes,
it should be recognized that there is currently no widely accepted method for designing a wall
constructed of a group of flexible tubes.
14
Challenges include the difficulty in obtaining permits for marine construction, and the high cost
of rapid equipment mobilization. Furthermore, soft marine soils may experience large short-term
settlements that could adversely affect construction.
When selecting a site to construct the reservoir, the preferred location for construction is a hard
and flat surface (e.g. parking lot). Puncture resistant specifications for the tubes and/or
specifications to identify the procedures for site preparation would be needed. The site should be
cleared of all obstructions before placement, which could be difficult in flooded areas. Location
of utilities would need to be performed and the material acquisition boundaries defined for this
application.
During the planning stage, designers should recognize that water filled tubes eliminate the need
for a dredge. The acquisition of fill material from the local area should be considered.
Construction
A reservoir constructed with a single tube providing the required height could be easier to build
and avoid some problems at the corners of a square reservoir. It was mentioned, though, that if
tubes need to be stacked that an elliptical shape could pose some problems: (1) the outside
perimeter of the tubes would experience high stresses, and (2) tube placement is not very
accurate. The reservoir, therefore, would more likely be built in a square configuration, stacking
the corners in a configuration similar to that of a log cabin, as sketched in Figure 1.
If tubes are filled with water, seaming the bottom two tubes together will probably be necessary
provided the tubes do not contain a baffle. It was recommended that seams be sewn with a union
special, which is a hand held device (110 V). To check the seam, a peel test was recommended
at a threshold value of 40%. It was noted that it will be difficult to seam and weld membranes in
a disaster situation. A hot wedge welder was also mentioned.
Settlement, thermal variations leading to expansion and contraction, and leaking that results in
reduced wall height could be potential concerns. If the walls of the reservoir are filled with
contaminated material it will probably need to be treated at the end of the process. Polymers
could be useful for this application.
15
(a) Bottom Row of Tubes
(b) Bottom and Top Rows of Tubes
Figure 1. Schematic of Stacked Tubes to Form a Reservoir
16
4.2 Panel Discussion: Dewatering Applications
The discussion began with posing a general problem: area flooded with 2.44 to 3.05 m of water
and a subsurface soil profile with 7.6 m of clay covering sand. The goal was to use the material
beneath the water as an emergency construction material. Dr. Fowler was of the opinion that it
was essential to find suitable material.
Conversation related to use of the material focused on movement of the material from beneath
the water to the construction site. One component discussed was the DryDredge™. It is a
dredge that uses a positive displacement pump fed by a clamshell bucket. This dredge was
mentioned as a means of transporting low water content material.
Dewatering technology (i.e. polymers) were also discussed during the panel discussions. A
dredge on a barge could pump material (10% to 30% solids) onto a second barge with a clarifier
(this could either be a standard clarifier or a geotextile tube). The material would be held on the
barge for a short time (e.g. 1 hour) and then be transported into either a mixer for stabilization
materials or into the geotextile tube. A general flowchart was sketched to highlight the major
steps required to perform the functions using dewatering polymers. This method would transport
high water content materials, dewater them, and then use the dewatered mass for filling the
geotextile tubes.
It was noted that construction time for a reservoir made of geotextile tubes could be
considerable; a production rate on the order of 110 wet metric tons per hour was mentioned using
the DryDredge™. It was crudely estimated during the panel discussion that the method using
polymers could theoretically produce on the order of the same amount of material as the
DryDredge™. Regardless of the transport mechanism, the material could be placed in a mixer
for soil stabilization and then moved to the final location, or moved to the final location and
stabilized in place.
5.0 SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS
Several important points can be taken from the workshop. First, a consensus was not reached
regarding the appropriate uses and/or approaches to implement regarding the two primary project
17
goals (construction of structural walls and rapid dewatering of material for immediate re-use in
construction). A wealth of information was presented and discussed, but a clear consensus was
never achieved.
The significance lies in the immediate nature in which a large disaster must be addressed. To
effectively use geotextile tubes in this environment, planning, training, and demonstration
exercises are needed beyond that currently in existence for both applications discussed. Provided
the invited participants adequately represent the geotextile tube industry as a whole,
implementation of rapid geotextile tube projects could be problematic as of the date of the
workshop. Select participants indicated construction time of comparable projects in normal
conditions with typical personnel and equipment resources could take a few weeks.
One subject discussed by the group and echoed by Dr. Koerner is that there is a lack of quality-
assurance and quality-control (QA and QC) during the design and installation of geotextile tubes.
Dr. Koerner and Mr. Trainer pointed out that there are a lot of geotextile manufacturers, but
designers need to consider only geotextile tube manufacturers, and they need to consider
specialty contractors to build with the geotextile tubes (often in conjunction with dredgers).
Currently, different construction techniques exist based on geographically available equipment.
The workshop group agreed that there is a need to develop a pre-certification system for
geotextile tube installers, who then can be on a list for rapid response.
It was suggested that the certification system could be similar to that of the International
Association of Geosynthetic Installers (IAGI), though IAGI is currently not relevant to geotextile
tubes since they do not have current geotextile tube test protocols. It was suggested that the
Geosynthetics Institute (GSI) could certify geosynthetic tube installers and develop standard tube
specifications and standards of practice for tube installation. The result would be standardization
of tube materials, fabrication, and installation. Pre-certification of emergency response
contractors was specifically endorsed by multiple participants, notably Mr. Gaffney, Mr. Trainer,
and Mr. Lovelace.
18
The previous discussion is applicable to structural and dewatering applications within a disaster
environment. Items applicable to only one of the two categories have been separated. They can
be found in the following sections.
5.1 Summary of Findings for Structural Applications
There was found to be a lack of well documented design procedures for structural applications.
External hydrodynamical stability is the parameter that appears to be the least understood for this
application in terms of geotextile tube stability in structural applications. Rigid bodies are often
assumed. This assessment was based largely on data provided by Dr. Gabr. On the other hand,
internal stability methodologies and software appear to be fairly well developed.
Two distinct categories of structural applications were found to exist depending on the material
filling the tubes: 1) sand, i.e. select material, or 2) fine grained material such as silt or clay, i.e.
non-select material. The use of select materials to fill geotextile tubes for structural applications
was, in general, strongly preferred. The use of non-select material (e.g. silt and clay) was a point
of contention. Specific details regarding non-select material use were discussed without
producing directed or immediately applicable end products. Some participants were of the
opinion that non-select materials with very low initial percent solids were worth investigation
while other participants were less optimistic and in turn less supportive of the concept. Dr.
Koerner indicated that there were potential problems with fine grained material inside a
geotextile tube used for structural applications prior to consolidation of the material. Non-select
material applications were presented during presentations of invited participants but they were
not rapid projects (at least not rapid based on the needs of a disaster environment). Rapid
dewatering and/or cementitious stabilization of non-select materials were also discussed and felt
to be potentially viable options by some participants.
Construction practices were discussed but not conclusive. It was mentioned that the best practice
was to fill one geotextile tube, fill it all at once, and match equipment with the geotextile tube
volume. Movement of material to where the geotextile tubes are to be filled was philosophically
debated. When using select material, the lack of affinity for water was noted to allow 10 to 15%
19
solids slurry to fill a geotextile tube more evenly and more quickly than say 30% solids. Sand
was slurried and pumped into Geotube® units in a project at the NASA Wallace Flight Center.
Additional items discussed during the workshop that are noteworthy are provided in the
following bullets.
Polyurea coated tubes could provide some benefits to a freshwater reservoir. This
coating has been sprayed onto geotextile tubes before and after deployment. The top
portions of the tubes could be sprayed with the coating to increase puncture resistance
and make them more impermeable while the bottoms of the tubes remain untreated.
Traditional applications cost $245 to $825/m including material and construction costs
according to Mr. Trainer. Offshore work requiring divers is noticeably more expensive,
but the costs associated with emergency construction using geotextile tubes does not
appear to be way out of line with disaster recovery.
The USACE is considering slurrying and pumping material on upcoming projects on the
Mississippi coast in a wetlands area in conjunction with filling geotextile tubes.
According to Mr. Lovelace, the first geotextile tube placed on the project is often the
worst.
Mr. Lovelace indicated marsh buggies can be useful when building with geotextile tubes.
Mr. Trainer indicated patching material for geotextile tubes can be purchased at local
retailers (e.g. building supply stores).
Care should be taken when terminating geotextile tubes since damage often begins at the
ends of tubes.
Many of the problems faced by the Strategic Highway Research Program included in a
presentation provided by Dr. Christopher appear to be similar to challenges of emergency
use of geotextile tubes.
The Dry DREdge™ presented by Dr. Fowler can pump many materials at in-situ density
with no free water. This attribute is valuable for use when attempting to produce an
emergency construction material such as in Task 5 of Task Order 4000064719. Photos
were provided of material pumped at 70% solids.
20
21
Geotextile tubes were used as the main structural component for ecosystem restoration
and made beneficial use of poor quality dredged material in work presented by Mr.
Gaffney.
Acquisition of fill material from the local area was noted to be very important.
Levee breach work of Dr. Resio shows significant promise for rapid construction using
geotextile tubes. Effective levee repair must be conducted within hours.
5.2 Summary of Findings for Dewatering Applications
Rapidly dewatering material for immediate re-use as an emergency construction material was
discussed at the workshop. The majority of this dialogue occurred during the corresponding
panel discussion. Items discussed during the workshop that are noteworthy are provided in the
following bullets.
Dr. Bhatia’s research indicates polymer tends to decrease permeability of the filter cake.
Mr. Hunter noted that most polymer companies keep little inventory in the current
markets so warehousing may be needed.
Ciba has a containerized liquid polymer makedown system ideal for disaster dewatering
needs. It is completely enclosed, can be transported on a commercial tractor-trailer, and
only requires external water and power. The difficulty could be the limited number of
these units commercially available. Smartfeed™ is another mobile feed chemical system
for polymers.
Dewatered sediments are commonly left much longer than would be possible in the
current project, but the percent solids achieved appear sufficient for development of
emergency construction material. For example, the Fox River sediments averaged 50%
total solids. The challenge to researchers is balancing an acceptable percent solids with
tolerable dewatering times.
Many tools exist in current practice that make rapid dewatering worth investigation, but
research and planning is needed before a method would be ready for implementation.
SECTION 6.OPRESENTATIONS GIVEN BY INVITED
PARTICIPANTS
22
Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
Mississippi State University Office of Research
Geotextile Tubes Workshop Statement of Workshop Goals: Isaac L. Howard
US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.1
23
Part of a research project funded by:
the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under SERRI.
Geotextile Tubes Workshop
24
Overall objective of SERRI project:
Develop materials, and design and construction procedures that may be rapidly deployed to protect and restore infrastructure during flooding events.
Six Tasks:
1: Levee Erosion Protection During Overtopping2: Bridge Deck Stability3: Levee Breach Closure4: Rapid Pavement Repair
5: Emergency Construction Material6: Geotextile Tubes – Fresh Water Reservoir
Geotextile Tubes Workshop
25
Task 5 Goal:
Develop Emergency Construction Material Using a Variety of Techniques Including Rapidly Dewatering Dredged Soil Using Polymers and Geotextile Tubes
Geotextile Tubes Workshop
y = 0.0591Ln(x) + 0.0171
R2 = 0.8118
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (t) hr
Sh
ear
Str
en
gth
(k
g/c
m2)
Dial Gage
Log. (Dial Gage)
26
Task 5 Goal:Develop Emergency Construction Material Using a Variety of Techniques Including Rapidly Dewatering Dredged Soil Using Polymers and Geotextile Tubes
Geotextile Tubes Workshop
27
Task 6 Goal:
Optimize geotextile tube use in disaster environments
Geotextile Tubes Workshop
28
2008 Workshop Goal:
Gather, synthesize, and disseminate current knowledge regarding State-of-Practice of the design and use of geotextile tubes.
Consider: design, specifications, construction, case studies, etc.
Geotextile Tubes Workshop
29
Dissemination of Information:
• Presentations will be directly published in the form of conference proceedings.
• Information discussed during panel discussions and breakout sessions will be recorded, edited, and published in a final report.
• Individual contributions of information during these general discussions will remain anonymous.
Geotextile Tubes Workshop
30
Attendees:
Government Agency?
University/College?
Manufacturer?
Consultant?
Institute?
Emergency Management?
Other?
Geotextile Tubes Workshop
31
November 17 – 19, 2008
Mississippi State University
Welcome!
Geotextile Tubes Workshop
32
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title:
Laboratory Study on the Role of Polymers in Rapid Dewatering
Author:
Shobha K. Bhatia, PhD
Affiliation and Contact Information:
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1190
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.2
33
1
Research Objectives
To conduct a systematic laboratory study to evaluate
relationship between geotextile index properties, sediment
characteristics and dewatering parameters;
To evaluate the use of polymers for enhancing dewatering
parameters;
To asses the suitability of test methods in predicting field
dewatering performance;
To develop design recommendations for designers and
engineers.
2
Dredging
Screening/ Conditioning
Geotextile Tube Dewatering
Effluent Treatment
Final disposal or containment
Field Tests and Evaluation
34
1
Project Implementation
Design - Geotextile, No. of tubes, configuration of tubes, dewatering rate, and efficiency
Lab Testing – Small scale (Jar Sedimentation, Falling Head and Pressure Filtration Test)
Field Testing - Hanging Bag Test, GDT, Demonstration Test, Full Scale Test
3
35
4
Geotextile tubes design considerations
1) Type of geotextile, geometry and number of tubes
2) Deformed shape
3) Final configuration
Dewatering Parameters
1) Filtration Efficiency (%) = (TSinitial –TSSfinal)/TSinitialwhere, TSinitial = total solids in slurry; TSSfinal= total suspended solids in filtrate
2) Dewatering Time
5
Geosynthetic Research Laboratory
Capillary Flow Porosimetry
Jar Test Streaming Current Detector Filtrate Quality Evaluation
Hanging Bag Test [Small & Large]
Falling Head Test
Pressure Filtration
36
W1 - monofilament W2 - multifilament
W3 - multifilament COMP –needle punched
NW – non-woven
Geotextiles used in the study
6
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11
Diameter (mm)
Perc
ent F
iner
(%
)
Mineral Oil
Silw ick
Porew ick
Product: Texel, 909 PET/PP, Staple, Needle-punched, Nonw ovenThickness: 2.3 mmPermeability: 0.45 cm/secAOS: 0.07-0.11 mm (Dry Sieving)Bubble Point: 0.116-0.135 mmO95: 0.098-0.11 mmO50: 0.069-0.076 mm
W2 -multifilament
Pore size, volume, permeability,
density, surface area, and adsorption
37
8
Geotextile Structure-polymer type1
Mass/unit area
(g/m2)
Thickness(mm)
BubblePoint2
(mm)
AOS3
(mm)ψ4
(s-1)Grab tensile strength
MD x CD 5 (kN/m)
W1 W, MF-PP 585 1.04 0.40 0.425 0.37
96.3 x 70
W2 W, MU-PET 600 1.33 0.30 0.27 0.37
175 x 175
W3 W, MU-PET 813 1.73 0.25 0.15 0.38
175 x 175
NW NW, NP-PP 550 0.5 0.23 0.2* 0.41
100 x 100
C COMP-PET,PP
906 3.27 0.12 0.045 0.39
184 x 183
1W: Woven, NW: Non-woven, COMP: Composite, MF: Monofilament, MU: Multifilament, NP: Needle punched, PP: Polypropylene, and PET: Polyester;2Bubble Point (as per as ASTM D6767-02); 3 Manufacturer value *Estimated;4ψ (permittivity); and 5MD: Machine direction and CD: Cross direction.
Geotextile Properties
9
Sediments
Property D10 D30 D60 Cu* Cc† So
‡
Materials (mm) (mm) (mm) (m2/kg)
Cayuga Lake sediments 0.08 0.1 0.18 2.25 0.7 350.8
Tully Silt 0.007 0.077 0.13 18 6.51 438.12
Tully Silt (Fine) 0.001 0.007 0.022 22§ 2.22§ 938.46
*Cu: coefficient of uniformity = D60/D10;†Cc: coefficient of curvature = (D30)
2/(D10)(D60)§Estimated; ‡So is the specific surface area using the method proposed by Chapuis and Légaré (1992)
Cayuga Lake sediments
Tully silt
Tully silt (Fine)
38
10
Polymer
“Solve 154 was determined to flocculate and dewater Tully Silt most effectively compared to other chemical conditioning products”- WaterSolve, LLC (2007)
Solve 154*: Water-in-Oil Emulsion Anionic Flocculent Polyacrylamide Copolymer*proprietary and chemical composition has not been disclosed
Solve 154 Performance trial courtesy of WaterSolve, LLC
11
Assessment of Dewatering Performance
Small Laboratory Tests
Jar Sedimentation Test (JST)
Falling Head Test (FHT)
Pressure Filtration Test (PFT)
Large Scale Tests
Hanging Bag Test (HBT)
Geotube Dewatering Test (GDT)
39
12
Jar Sedimentation Test (JST)
To determine: Initial settling rate (ui) Final proportion of settled sediments (Sp) Need for chemical conditioning if ui < 0.1 cm/s
JST (Tully silt fine) without polymer
JST (Tully silt fine) with polymer Wakeman and Tarleton (2007)
13
Falling Head Test Results
40
14
SU Pressure Filtration Test Setup
Objective: To determine FE and FR of geotextiles under pressure
Volume of Slurry: 0.6 L
Test Duration: 1-2 hrs
PFT Test Filter cakeFilter cake and filtrate
15
Flow Rate -Tully Silt
7.0cm, 7kPa
4.5cm, 35kPa
4.3cm, 70kPa
0
2
4
6
8
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (min)
Flo
w r
ate
(c
m/m
in)
7kPa 35kPa 70kPa
Water content = 200%
W2
41
16
Results for Tully Silt with Nonwoven and Composite Geotextiles
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (min)
Flo
w r
ate
(c
m/m
in) COMP, 200%
NW, 200%
Pressure=35kPa FE (%) Piping rate(g/m^2)
99.7 141.9 56.3 24683.2
5.0
200%,Comp
3.5
200%, NW
17
Typical Pressure Filtration Test Results
42
18
PFT Results: Cake Resistance
Non-linearity in the (t-ti)/(V-Vi) vs V plot indicates permeation through a formed “sedimented cake”
Cake resistance increases with time resulting in increase of dewatering time
Cake resistance is directly proportional to the solids percentage
Applied Pressure: 35 kPa
19
Soil Piping
43
20
Enhancement of Dewatering
Chemical conditioning Solve 154 was used to condition Tully silt (Fine) at 33 % solids
Jar test Ensure mixing conditions and estimate range of optimal polymer dosage Polymer dosage
Varied from 0 to 200 ppm in 25 ppm increments
Mixing energy Velocity gradient (G) varied from 50 to 200 s-1 for optimal dose
(Recommended by WaterSolve, LLC to correspond to anticipated G in practice)
Pressure Filtration and Other Tests Optimal dewatering conditions (Polymer dosage and mixing)
21
Evaluation of Chemical Conditioning
Geotextile
Before dosing flocculent
After dosing flocculent
44
22
Tully Silt – Polymer Conditioning
0
2
4
6
8
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (min)
Flo
w r
ate
(cm
/min
)
67ppm 13ppm 7ppm 0ppm
FE (%) 99.9 99.9 98.1 87.9
Piping rate (g/m2)
44.6 19.8 576.7 5026.0
Silt with W2 at 33% solids content, 35kPa conditioned by flocculent Magnafloc336 (Ciba)
23
Temporal flow characteristics for dewatering polymer treated Tully silt (Fine) at 33 % using geotextile W1
45
24
Variation of Filter Cake with Polymer DoseO ppm 12.5 ppm
175 ppm 200 ppm
25
Variation of Cake Height and Water Content With Polymer Dosage
Inter and intra floc moisture content
46
26
Range of piping observed for different polymer dosage
27
Variation of piping with and with and without polymer conditioning
47
28
Influence of Geotextile Type with and without Polymer
WI
W2 W3
NW COMP
29
Effectiveness of Polymer Conditioning
where
PTS(F) = piping with Tully silt (Fine), PTS(F)+P = piping with polymer-conditioned Tully silt (Fine)
x100TS(F)
PPTS(F)
PTS(F)
Pess(%)Effectiven
48
30
Effectiveness of Polymer Conditioning
31
Comparison of Test Methods
JST FHT PFT HBT GDT
JST FHT PFT HBT GDT
Area Sampled (cm2) - 40-60 40 1.43X105 variable
Flow condition Vertical, 1-D
Vertical, 1-D
Vertical,
1-D
Vertical and Radial, 2-D
Radial,
3-D
Volume of Slurry (L) 1.0 1.25 0.8 200 30-500
Pressure Applied NO* NO* YES NO* YES
* Dewatering is under gravity
49
32
Hanging Bag Test Results
HBT test
HBT 1
HBT 2
HBT (Polymer)
Filtrate characteristics
33
Geotextile Tube Demonstration (GDT) Test
Sediments slurry is rapidly filled to a predetermined height to facilitate dewatering under a pressure of 6.0KPa.
Filtrate samples are collected and upon completion of the dewatering, the bag is cut open to assess final percentage solid.
50
34
Typical HBT Results
35
Small and Large Scale laboratory Test Results on Tully Fine at 33% solid content
Parameter FHT HBT GDT PFT
Dewatering Efficiency (%)
125.2 127.8 132.0 126.0
Percent Piping (%) 75 56 85 78
Filter Cake Height (mm)
5.3 110 3.9 6
Filter Cake Moisture Content (%)
34.6 33.2 29.3 34.0
Filtrate Volume / Initial Slurry Volume
0.87 0.73 0.81 0.88
51
36
Influence of Index Properties on Dewatering
37
Falling Head, Hanging Bag and Geotextile Tube Demonstration Test
52
38
Preliminary Conclusions
Fundamental understanding of sedimentation is essential to understand dewatering of dredged sediments
(AOS/d85) ≤ 1.5 was found to be a conservative retention criterion to limit piping to 1900 g/m2 (Aydilek and & Edil, 2002) for dewatering natural sediments
Polymer use was found to be effective in optimizing dewatering by minimizing piping and DT
A new criterion is proposed to limit the piping value to 800 g/m2 for dewatering polymer-conditioned sediments
53
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Laboratory Study on the Role of Polymers in Rapid Dewatering by Shobha K. Bhatia, PhD.
54
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title:
Mainstreaming Geotextile Tube Implementation
Author:
Barry R. Christopher, PhD, PEAffiliation and Contact Information:
Christopher Consultants, 210 Boxelder Lane, Roswell, GA 30076tel: 770-641-8696 e-mail: [email protected]
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.3
55
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents... What does happen is that its opponents die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning."— Max Planck
Sounds like Civil Engineers, but we can no longer wait for the opponents to die out. 1
Mainstreaming New Technologies
In the US, widespread acceptance of viable new technologies requires excessive time
New initiatives under the Strategic Highway Research Program II are to:
Identify technical and non-technical issues that preclude or delay widespread use of new technologies
Develop mitigation measures to overcome obstacles
2
56
Accelerating solutions for highway safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity
SHRP2 Renewal Objective 1: Rapid Renewal of Transportation Facilities
SHRP2 Renewal Objective 2: Minimal Disruption of Traffic
SHRP2 Renewal Objective 3: Production of Long-Lived Facilities
3
R02. Geotechnical Solutions for Soil Improvement, Rapid Embankment Construction and Stabilization of the Pavement Working Platform
Anticipated Products• Mitigation measures to overcome obstacles to more widespread use of soil
improvement technologies
• Guidelines and methods for selection, design, QA/QC, costs, and specifications for soil improvement technologies applied to:
New embankments and roadways over unstable soils (Element 1)
Embankment widening (Element 2)
Stabilization of base, sub-base, and subgrade layers (Element 3)
4
57
RO2 TeamRYAN BERG, RYAN R. BERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.DONALD BRUCE, GEOSYSTEMS, L.P.BARRY CHRISTOPHER, CONSULTANTJIM COLLIN, THE COLLIN GROUP, LTD.GARY FICK, TRINITY CONSTRUCTIONGEORGE FILZ, VIRGINIA TECHJIE HAN, UNIVERSITY OF KANSASJIM MITCHELL, VIRGINIA TECHVERN SCHAEFER, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY (PRIME CONTRACTOR)DENNIS TURNER, THE TRANSTEC GROUPLINBING WANG, VIRGINIA TECHDAVID WHITE, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
PLUS ADVISORY BOARD OF DOT REPRESENTATIVES AND DESIGN/BUILD CONTRACTORS
5
1. Column Supported Embankments
2. Geosynthetic Reinforced Platforms
2. Continuous Flight Auger Piles
2. Vibro-concrete Columns
5. Stone Columns
5. Deep Mixing Methods
7. Reinforced Soil Slopes
8. Vibrocompaction
9. Rammed Aggregate Piers
10. Light Weight Fills
-- Geotextile Tubes ??
1. Column Supported Embankments
2. Reinforced Soil Slopes
3. Continuous Flight Auger Piles
3. Geosynthetic Reinforced Platforms
3. Vibro-concrete Columns
6. Deep Mixing Methods
6. Stone Columns
8. Light Weight Fills
9. Rapid Impact Compaction
10. Rammed Aggregate Piers
- - Geotextile Tubes??
Top 10 New Technologies
Element 1. New embankments & roadways over unstable soils
Element 2 Embankment widening
6
58
QC/QAPerformance CriteriaMonitoringGeotechnical LimitationsNon-geotechnical LimitationsCase HistoryEnvironmental ImpactsInitial CostsLife Cycle CostsDurabilityReliability
Technology OverviewSite CharacterizationAnalysis TechniquesDesign ProceduresDesign CodesConstruction MethodsConstruction TimeEquipment/ContractorsConstruction LoadsContracting Construction Specs
Categorized Bibliography(developed for each technology)
7
Identified Technical Issues
1Lack of simple, comprehensive, reliable, and non-proprietary analysis and design procedures
2Costs for design, construction, QC/QA, and/or maintenance
3 Construction time
4 Time from installation to full effectiveness
5Lack of established engineering parameters or performance criteria
6 Lack of effective QA/QC procedures
7 Lack of easy-to-use tools for selecting technology
8 Technology immaturity8
59
9
9 Need for a specific project delivery method
10 Lack of site characterization information
11 Performance uncertainty
12 Lack of long-term performance data
13 Environmental impacts of the technology
14 Lack of accessible case histories
15 Construction loads
16 Vibrations
17 Lack of suitable model specifications
Technical Issues Continued
QA/QC Measures for Each Technology
1Existing QC/QA procedures and measurement values
QCMaterial Related
Process Control
QAMaterial Related
Process Control
2 Performance CriteriaMaterial Parameters
System Behavior
3Emerging QC/QA procedures and measurement values
QCMaterial Related
Process Control
QAMaterial Related
Process Control 10
60
Task 4
Identify and discuss the non-geotechnical project-specific parameters that constrain the full utilization of the application of the identified geotechnical materials and systems
11
Non-Technical Issues
1 Lack of knowledge about the technology
2Lack of organizational structure and policies to encourage use of new technologies
3 Absence of champion or technical leadership
4Lack of qualified contractors, personnel, materials, and equipment
5 Liability
6 Proprietary product/process
7 External pressures on agency
8Project conditions (ROW, geometry, scale, utilities, sequence, and impact on project construction time) 12
61
13
9 Traffic management
10 Public impact
11 Existing market protection
12 Environmental impacts on the technology
13 Lack of profit or return on investment
14 Weather
15 Requirements for waste disposal
Non-Technical Issues Continued
•Mitigation Strategies
Initially 10 Strategic CategoriesPromotional
Collaboration
1. Demonstration/R&D
2. Specifications and Bidding
3. Case History/Database
4. Preparation of Manuals
5. Internal SHRP
6. Outreach
7. Additional Supporting Information
8. Back Analysis 14
62
Geotextile Tube Applicationswithin SHRP II
New embankments and roadways over unstable soils
Embankment widening
15
Geotextile Tubes for Below Water Soft Foundation Embankment Construction
16
63
Combined Technologies for Accelerated Construction
Geotextile tubes and Electro Osmosis with Conductive Geotextiles
Geotextile tubes and Vacuum Consolidation
Hydraulically Constructed MSEWrequires facing system developed and improved analysis for pretensioned geotextiles
17
Geotubes and Vacuum Consolidation
The technology is the process of combining hydraulic fill, vacuum consolidation (and possibly horizontal drains in the geotextile tube) to allow the use of both waste and non waste flowable materials and potentially expedite construction of embankments in some regions.
18
64
Geotubes and Electro Osmosis (e.g. with Electro Kinetic Geotextiles)
EK drainage bag Comparison of hydraulic &
electrokinetic flow rates.(Photo and figure from Jones, 2008, EuroGeo4) 19
Combining Technologies – Hydraulically Constructed MSEW
20
65
Workshop Recommendations for Geotextile Tubes (all applications)
Review list of technical & nontechnical issues Identify the degree of interference with widespread use (High, Medium, Low, None)
Identify QA/QA measures Existing for materials and processes, performance measures, and emerging measurement methods (e.g., smart geotextiles
Identify improvement requirements & methods for above
Review mitigation strategies to improve widespread use 21
66
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Mainstreaming Geotextile Tube Implementation by Barry R. Christopher, PhD, PE.
67
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title: Geotextile Tubes, Design, Applications and Case Histories
Author:Jack Fowler, Ph.D., PE
Affiliation and Contact Information:Geotec Associates5000 Lowery Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180
Ph. 601-636-5475
www.geotec.biz
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.4
68
1
What are Geotextile Container Systems?
Geotextile Containers
Geotextile Tubes
Geotextile Bags
2
Typical Marine Installation
69
3
Panels Being SewnManufactured by sewing multiple sheets of high strength woven polyester or poly-propylene fabrics with high strength seams
4
Rolling Up Tube
70
5
Tube Design Plan View
6
GETube Design Software
Software is available to calculate fabric stresses during the critical time of filling and installation when the fill material is fluid.
Jack Fowler [email protected]
71
7
Typical Input Data for GETube Computer Program
Material Bulk Specific Gravity, 1.6 to 2.0
Factor of Safety, 5.0
Circumference, 30, 45, and 60 ft
Tensile Strength, 500 to 1000 lb/in
Water Depth
8
GETube Input ParametersSelect any two Parameters and the others
will be computed
C = Circumference of the tube
H = Height of the inflated tube
T = Tensile Strength of the tube fabric
V= Volume to which the tube is filled
P = Excess Pressure above the top of tube
R = Ratio of the fabric area to tube volume
72
9
Typical Output Data for 45 ft Cir Tube
10
Filling Methods
Hydraulic
Mechanical
Positive Displacement
73
11
Hydraulic Dredges
Suction Cutterhead Dredges
Horizontal Cutterhead Dredges
Submergible Pumps
Eductor Dredges
Positive Displacement Dredges
12
Mechanical Methods
Mechanical placement of soft fluid mud using hoppers.
Mechanical placement of sand into Tubes using hoppers and water flooding the hoppers.
Mechanical conveyor belts and hoppers.
74
13
Installation Techniques
14
Overview of Various Dredging and Tube
Filling Methods
75
15
Hopper Method
When fill material is not available at site, sand can be imported and installed using hopper methods.
16
Filling Tubes Underwater
76
17
Dredge Method
Most common method of filling Tubes.
18
HandDredge MethodWhere large pumping equipment is not available small hand held equipment can be used for filling Tubes.
77
19
Alternate Pumping MethodsPumping methods can be modified to comply with local permits or site limitations.
20
Dry Fill MethodMechanical means of filling Containers or Sand bags.
78
21
22
Pumps Material at In-situ Density With No Free Water
79
23
Pumping 70% Solids
24
Potential Dewatering Applications
Fine Grained Dredged MaterialMunicipal Sewage SludgeAgricultural WastePulp and Paper Mill Sludge Fly AshMining and Drilling WasteIndustrial By-Product Waste Coal Sludge
80
25
CONTAINMENT AND DEWATERING
CONTAINMENT PHASE
26
CONTAINMENT AND DEWATERING
CONTAINMENT PHASE
DEWATERING PHASE
81
27
CONSOLIDATION AND DESICCATION
CONSOLIDATION PHASE
28
Gaillard Island, AL, 1991
Mobile District Corps of Engineers Geotextile
Tubes filled with fine grained
dredged material
82
29
30” Diameter Pipe, Dave Blackman 6’ suction cutterhead dredge
30
In-situ Slurry Density = 1.3 gr/ml
83
31
500 ft long tubes after filling
32
Slurry Filled Tube Design
84
33
Slurry Filled Tubes
34
Tubes after one year
85
35
Dried slurry after one year
36
Vegetation growth after 30 days
86
37
Alum Sulfate
Pond
Desiccation
Cracks
CULKIN WATER DISTRICTDewatering Alum Sludge, Vicksburg, MS
38
Culkin Water
Alum
Sludge
In Hanging
Bag Test
Showing
Clear Water
Effluent
87
39
Alum Sludge
Effluent
Water
Culkin Water Hanging Bag Test
40
Culkin Water After Filling Over 20 Times
88
41
Culkin Water Measuring Consolidation
Water Quality
42
Hanging Bag Test-DewateringVicksburg, MS
Sewage Treatment Plant
89
43
Fine Grained Sediment
44
Sediment Height
90
45
Effluent Collection
46
Sampling Effluent
91
47
Settling Column and Hanging Bag Tests
48
Geotechnical Fill Material Properties Required for Estimating Consolidation, Bulking & Shrinkage Factors
- In Situ Density or Percent Solids or Moisture Content
- Density or Percent Solids or Moisture Content after dewatering (Target value)
- Specific Gravity of the Solids
- Gradation
- Atterberg Limits (LL, PL, & PI)
- Geotechnical Classification
- Settling Time
- Polymer Requirements
92
49
Shrinkage factor for DM in Tube after filling,
dewatering, consolidation and desiccation
drying. Bulking is inverse of Shrinkage factor.
Shrinkage Vdw edw + 1 γ 0 - 1
Factor = ------- = ----------- or ---------
Vo eo + 1 γ dw- 1
where, edw, γ dw , and Vdw are values in Tube after
dewatering, consolidation and desiccation drying.
Where in situ, eo = water content x specific gravity
Where γ 0 = in situ density
50
Example Calculation for the Shrinkage Factor
Shrinkage Vdw edw + 1 γ 0 - 1Factor = ------- = ----------- or ---------
Vo eo + 1 γ dw- 1
1.2 - 1.0
Shrinkage = ---------------- = 0.5 or 50%
or reduction 1.4 - 1.0
Factor
93
51
52
Tube 30 ft Circumference 5ft High
94
53
Target Percent Solids
54
95
55
Soil Properties Before, During and After Dredging (Cont’d)
56
Dredge Production Rate into Tubes or CDF
96
57
Void Ratio vs Moisture Content
58
Aerial View of Sludge Filled Tube
New Orleans Sewage Treatment Plant
January, 2000-2004
97
59Sewage Sludge Filled Tube
60
Desiccated Sewage Sludge
98
61
MILLENNIUM PLANT215 HP Nomad III Horizontal Cutterhead dredge pumping at a rate of 3,000 gpm at 10% solids.
62
MILLENNIUM PLANTTap water on left compared to effluent water on right immediately following collection from Geotextile Tube
Tap Effluent
99
63
Titanium
Sulfate Dioxide
65% Solids
Millennium Plant
64
30 ft Cir
100 ft Long
Geotextile
tube
Showing
Elevation
Wellston Ohio Coal Sludge
100
65
Water effluent quality very clear with polymers
Century Mine Hanging Bag Test
66
Century Mine Hanging Bag Test
Slurry at 63.5%Solids second day of drainage with polymers
101
67
20 CY Roll Off Box
68
Wooden Pallets for Drainage
102
69
20 ft Long Bag Prior to Filling
70
Filling Roll Off Box Bag
103
71
Roll Box Bag Filled
72
Effluent from Roll Off Box
104
73
5 CY Roll Off Box Bag
74
20 CY Roll Off Box Filled
105
75
Dumping Roll Off Box Bag
76
Geosynthetic Reinforced Inflatable Tube Simulator (GRITS)Developed by John B. Palmerton (Deceased Spring 2006)
106
77
78
Stacked Tubes Wrong Method
107
79
Stacked Tube Right Method
80
Filling Stacked Tubes
108
81
Stacked Tubes, Fly Ash
82
Marine ApplicationsCore of a sand duneCreation of WetlandsCore of Rip Rap Breakwaters Core of Rip Rap Jetties Underwater StructuresDiversion DikesDredge Material Containment
Beneficial Uses Of Dredged Material Filled Geotextile Tubes
Coastal and Riverine Applications
109
83
84
Shoreline Protection
110
85
Shoreline Protection
86
Shoreline Protection
111
87
Offshore Breakwater Protection, Amwaj Island
88
Tube During Filling, Amwaj Is
112
89
Outside Perimeter Design, Amwaj, Island
90
Amway Island
90
113
91
Bolivar Peninsula,
Texas Coast
18,000 LIN. FT. Of Tube
Protecting Shoreline
Installed 2000
Coastal Beach Application of Polyester Geotextile Tubes
92
Bolivar Peninsula, TX
Note the nonwoven shroud that covers the exposed portion of the Tube. The shroud is for increased UV protection.
114
93
Bolivar Peninsula,
TX
Tube sections were joined to create a relatively even elevation for the total length or the installation.
94
Bolivar Peninsula,
TX
Backhoe places sand to cover the Tube and
create the new sand dune.
115
95
Bolivar Peninsula, TX
Tubes are buried in the dune to act as monolithic structure to combat destructive wave energy.
96
Bolivar Peninsula, TX
Tube was exposed during Tropical Storm Allison, June 2001.
116
97
Bolivar Peninsula, TX
Tube was exposed during Tropical Storm Allison, June 2001.
98
Bolivar Peninsula, TX
The Tube installation protected
structures along the coast line
during the storm saving the community millions of
dollars in repair.
117
99
Bolivar Peninsula, TX
The Tube project on Bolivar Peninsula was so successful that it has been extended another 15,000 linear ft.
100
Bolivar Beach Tubes after Ike
118
101
Bolivar Tubes after Ike
102
Bolivar Beach Tube after Ike
119
103
Crystal Beach before and after Hurricane Ike
104
Pirates Beach after Ike
120
105
Fine Grained Volcanic Sand
Aleutian IslandsNelson Lagoon, AK2005
106
Shoreline Erosion on Nelson Lagoon
121
107
Placing Scour Apron and Scour Tubes
108
Tube during placement
122
109
Tube after placement
110
Filling hopper with front end loader
123
111
Water exiting the tube
112
Filling Geotextile Tube at Low Tide
Land Reclamation on the North Sea in the
Netherlands
124
113
Filling Geotextile Tube at High Tide
113
114
Parallel Geotextile Tubes in Perimeter Dikes
114
125
115
Sand Fill behind Geotextile Tube Dike
115
116
Container PlacementContainer Placement
Geotextile Containers For Below Water Scour Protection
Port Of RotterdamRotterdam, The Netherlands
126
117
Sand Bag and Container Application to Control River Sediments
Red Eye Crossing, Mississippi River
Baton Rouge, LA1993 to 1994
118118
127
119
Sand Bag and Container Dikes
119
120Three bag dikes and three container dikes
120
128
121
Filling Sand Bags
121
122
Instrumented sand bag
129
123Sand Bag Placement 123
124124
130
125
Filling Containers
125
126
Sewing Containers Closed
126
131
127Placement of Containers
128
Placement of geotextile containers
128
132
129Geocontainers Model Tests
Split Hull Barge Distinct Computer Model Application
John [email protected]
129
130
Split-Hull Scow Container Drop Simulations
133
131
Split-Hull Scow Container Drop Simulations
132
Split-Hull Scow Container Drop Simulations
134
133
Split-Hull Scow Container Drop Simulations
134
Containers After 6 yearsRed Eye CrossingBaton Rouge, LA October 1999
134
135
135
Red Eye CrossingBaton Rouge, LA October 1999
Bags After 6 years
135
136
Bags and Vegetation
136
136
137
Note influence of Bags and Containers
137
138
Note influence of Soft Dikes
138
137
139
Dredged Material Disposal Area
NaviductIsjlmer, The Netherlands Geotextile Tubes
Used As A Dike Core For Land Reclamation
139
140
The Naviduct ProjectLarge scale Rip Rap test covering Tubes
138
141
Woven Polyester Geotextile Tube Failures in a Coastal Erosion Application Installed in Dec 1997 and Completed in June 1998
142
Considerable amount of fill material has escaped from failed polyester tube
139
143
Close up view of polyester tube failed area near a fill port -MD yarns failed due to UV and hydrolysis degradation
140
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Geotextile Tubes, Design, Applications and Case Histories by Jack Fowler, PhD, PE.
141
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title:
Stability of Geotubes and Research Needs
Authors:
Mohammed A. Gabr(Presenter)1, Mahdi Khalilzad1, Margery F. Overton1, and Billy Edge2
Affiliation and Contact Information:1Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State Univ, Email:[email protected] Director, Reta and Bill Haynes '46 Coastal Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, Email: [email protected]
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.5
142
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Approaches in literature
3.Analysis of Geotubes at Galveston
4.Behavior of Geotubes at Galveston
5.Summary
1
Recent StormsSevere beach and dune erosion along the
Gulf shoreline of the southeast Texas coast Geotubes Performance
Tropical Storm Tropical Storm Fay, Fay,
September September 20022002
Tropical Storm Tropical Storm Allison , Allison ,
June 2001June 2001
Hurricane Hurricane Claudette, Claudette, July 2003July 2003
Not significant sto
rms to
assess geotube performance
Significant damage to the geotubes along the west Galveston beachfront
Reference: • Gibeaut, J. C., Hepner, Tiffany, Waldinger, R. L., Andrews, J. R., Smyth, R. C., and Gutiérrez, Roberto, 2003, Geotextile tubes along the upper Texas Gulf coast: May 2000 to March 2003: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for Texas Coastal Coordination Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA07OZ0134, under GLO contract number 02-493 R, 37 p. + apps. 2
Tropical Storm Tropical Storm Frances, Frances,
September September 19981998
143
Notable Storms (1996-2006)
Reference: • Daniel J. Heilman, et al. (2008), Interaction of Shore-Parallel Geotextile Tubes and Beaches along the Upper Texas Coast, US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ERDC/CHL CHETN-II-51
3
Recent Storms
September 2008September 2008IKE StormIKE Storm
Reference:
Website of National Weather Service Forecast Office 4
Peak Surge : 3.54 mPeak Surge : 3.54 m
144
Geotubes at southeast Texas coast :
Oval cross section of 12 ft made of geotextile fabric
Rest on a fabric scour apron that has sediment-filled anchor tubes
along each edge
Placed in a trench parallel to shore along the back beach or foredunes
Nine geotube projects cover a total of 7.6 mi of shoreline
Reference:
Gibeaut, J. C., Hepner, Tiffany, Waldinger, R. L., Andrews, J. R., Smyth, R. C., and Gutiérrez, Roberto, 2003, Geotextile tubes along the upper Texas Gulf coast: May 2000 to March 2003: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for Texas Coastal Coordination Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA07OZ0134, under GLO contract number 02-493 R, 37 p. + apps.
Webpage of Bureau of Economic Geology, Coastal Studies Group5
Geotubes at Bolivar Peninsula:
30 ft Circumference, 250 ft long geotextile tubes
Main body: Mirafi® GT 1000
Placed on a scour apron with anchor tubes made of Mirafi® GT 500
Mirafi® 1120 N at the top of the geotube as a shroud for UV
protection
Reference:
TencateWebpage
6
145
Cross section of a geotube installation:
Reference: Gibeaut, J. C., Hepner, Tiffany, Waldinger, R. L., Andrews, J. R., Smyth, R. C., and
Gutiérrez, Roberto, 2003, Geotextile tubes along the upper Texas Gulf coast: May 2000 to March 2003: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for Texas Coastal Coordination Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA07OZ0134, under GLO contract number 02-493 R, 37 p. + apps.
7
Parameters should be considered:
Physical properties of filling materials and geotextile
Internal stability: mechanical properties of geotextile, shape, and
tension force
During filling
During performance
Durability
External hydrodynamical stability
8
146
Internal Stability: Tension in membrane
(Leshchinsky et al., 1996)
Assumptions:
Plain Strain State (Long Tube)
Thin, flexible shell with negligible unit weight
Hydrostatic state of stress inside the tube
No shear stress between geosynthetic and slurry
Numerical solution of differential equations yields
the relationship between T, P0, h and y(x)
Computer program GeoCoPS (Leshchinsky and Leshchinsky, 1996) was developed to compute geometry of
tube y(x) and two of three parameters (T, h,and P0)
Reference:
Leshchinsky, D., Leshchinsky, O., Ling, H. I., and Gilbert, P. A. (1996). "Geosynthetic tubes for confining pressurized slurry: some design aspects." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122(8), 682-690.
9
Tension in membrane (Plaut et al., 1998)
Assumptions:
Two Dimensional solution (Plain Strain )
Inextensible membrane with negligible weight
Rest on a rigid, horizontal foundation
Incompressible fluid inside the tube
Solution for 3 cases:
Geotube on the rigid foundation
Geotube on the deformable foundation
Geotube with water on one side
Reference:
Plaut, R. H., & Suherman, S. (1998). Two-dimensional analysis of geosynthetic tubes. Acta Mechanica,
129(3-4), 207-218. 82-690.10
147
Types of Wave Breaking
Hurricane IKE :
For pleasure pier:
Assuming:
Average Period: 8.2 sec
Hs= 3.54 m
Slope angle
α=5˚
α=10˚
α=20˚
Reference:
US Army engineers, Coastal Engineering Manual, Report EM 1110-2-1100
Website of NOAA
ξ
ξ =0.47
ξ=0.96
ξ=1.98
11
External Stability; Hydrodynamic Pressure (Pw):
γ0 = Unit weight of sea water H1/3=Significant wave height____________________________________________________________________________________________________
β= Impact force coefficient
0 1/31.5wP Hγ= × ×Hiroi (1920)
Liu (1981)
2b
FH
βγ
= in terms of and s
b
dH
sdh
Reference:
Shin, E. C., & Oh, Y. I. (2007). Coastal erosion prevention by geotextile tube technology. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25(4-5), 264-277
Liu, G. S. (1981). "Design criteria of sand sausages for beach defense." Proceedings, 19th Congress of the International Association for Hydraulic Research, Vol. 3, New Delhi, India, 123-131. 12
148
Galveston Geotube
Circumference= 9.9 m
Peak water level= 3.8m NAVD
MSL=NAVD+0.15 m
Bottom of Geotube at 1.5 m
Water Head on Geotube=2.15 m
Break Wave Height = 1.67 m
Assumptions:
a=2b
Contact width is 80% of the long diameter.
Reference:
Website of National Weather Service Forecast Office
Geotube
a=2mb=1m
Peak water levelPeak surge
(Leshchinsky et al., 1996)
13
External Stability
Sliding
Overturning
Bearing capacity
Normal to High Water Condition:
Seepage and Quick Conditions
Note: Not accounting the drag forces
FwGeotube
Ff
h1 h2
S.F.=3.0~1.5
S.F.~0.8
S.F.~1.5
14
149
Billy Edge, Texas A&M – Team Leader
Spencer Rogers, North Carolina Sea Grant - Team Leader
Robert G. Dean, University of Florida
James Kaihatu, Texas A&M
Lesley Ewing, California Coastal Commission
Mandy Loeffler, Moffatt & Nichol, Houston
Margery Overton, North Carolina State University
Kojiro Suzuki, Port and Airport Research Institute, Japan
Paul Work, Georgia Tech
Garry Gregory, Gregory Geotechnical - ASCE Geo Institute Liaison
Donald Stauble, USACE/ERDC/CHL
Jeffrey Waters, USACE/ERDC/CHL
Eddie Wiggins, USACE/JALBTCX
Marie Horgan Garrett, Coastal Solutions, Inc. 15
COPRI: :Ike Field Investigation to Document Perishable Data: October 3, 2008
Shoreline recession due to erosion
Damage to the coastal structure
Consequences:Consequences:
http://content.coprinstitute.org/HurricaneIketeam.html
Surge and flooding also from the bay side Elevation of shore protection MeasuresGeotube barriers: overtopped, rolledSome flattened and buried fully or partly
16
150
3. Behavior of Geotubes at Galveston:
Reference:
http://ngs.woc.noaa.gov/ike/IMAGES/ike_c25882150.htm17
3. Behavior of Geotubes at Galveston:
Reference:
http://ngs.woc.noaa.gov/ike/IMAGES/ike_c25882224.htm 18
151
19
20Photo by Kojiro Suzuki, Port and Airport Research Institute, Japan
152
21
22
153
23
Summary
Geotubes provided protection for the landward infrastructures
Lack of a well documented design process for Geotubes including
characterization of storm loading
Consider internal and external stability
Consider the relative flexibility of the Geotube and underlying
foundation in external and internal stability
Consider possible Scour on landside due to trapping and scour at base
Consider system approach for engineered “fuses” to minimize landside
scour24
154
References
Heilman, D. J., Perry, M. C., Thomas, R. C., & Kraus, N. C. (2008). Interaction of shore-parallel geotextile tubes and beaches along the upper texas coast. United States.
Isebe, D., Azerad, P., zouchette, F., Ivorra, B., & Mohammadi, B. (2008). Shape optimization of geotextile tubes for sandy beach protection. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 74(8), 1262-1277. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.2209
Zhang, W., & Tan, J. (2007). Mechanical mechanism analysis of geotextile tubes applied in offshore low-crested breakwaters. Chuan Bo Li Xue/Journal of Ship Mechanics, 11(6), 859-866.
Alvarez, I. E., Rubio, R., & Ricalde, H. (2007). Beach restoration with geotextile tubes as submerged breakwaters in yucatan, mexico. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25(4-5), 233-241. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.02.005
Saathoff, F., Oumeraci, H., & Restall, S. (2007). Australian and german experiences on the use of geotextile containers. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25(4-5), 251-263. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.02.009
Shin, E. C., & Oh, Y. I. (2007). Coastal erosion prevention by geotextile tube technology. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25(4-5), 264-277. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.02.003
Koerner, G. R., & Koerner, R. M. (2006). Geotextile tube assessment using a hanging bag test. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24(2), 129-137. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.02.006
Jones, D. L., Davis, J. E., Curtis, W. R., & Pollock, C. E. (2006). Geotextile tube structures guidelines for contract specifications. United States:
25
ReferencesOh, Y. I., & Shin, E. C. (2006). Using submerged geotextile tubes in the protection of the E. korean shore. Coastal Engineering, 53(11), 879-895. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2006.06.005
Tyagi, V. K., & Mandal, J. N. (2006). Physical and numerical modelling of stacked geotubes subjected to dynamic loads. Paper presented at the International Conference on Civil Engineering in the Oceans VI, 356-365.
Van Zijl, P. M. N., Vlasblom, W. J., De Gijt, J. G., Broos, E. J., & De Boer, J. (2006). Feasibility study of the continuous geotube. Terra Et Aqua, (102), 19-24.
Zhang, W., & Tan, J. (2006). Shape and mechanical behavior of geotextile tubes. Journal of Donghua University (English Edition), 23(2), 8-12.
Kim, M., Moler, M., Freeman, M., Filz, G. M., & Plaut, R. H. (2005). Stacked geomembrane tubes for flood control: Experiments and analysis. Geosynthetics International, 12(5), 253-259. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/gein.2005.12.5.253
Koerner, G. R., & Koerner, R. M. (2005). Geotextile tube evaluation by hanging bag and pressure filtration testing. Paper presented at the Geo-Frontiers 2005, (130-142) 4239-4245.
Shin, E. C., & Oh, Y. I. (2005). The stability and wave transmit analysis of submerged geotextile tube breakwater by hydraulic model test. Paper presented at the 15th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, ISOPE-2005, , 2005 525-530.
Weggel, J. R. (2005). On the stability of shore-parallel geotextile tubes for shore protection. Paper presented at the Geo-Frontiers 2005, (130-142) 4379-4384.
Jin, X. (2004). Geotube application in land reclamation from sea. Dong Hua Da Xue Xue Bao � Ying Wen Ban �, 21(1), 96.
26
155
ReferencesGhaswala, J. (2003). Geotextile tube technology adapted for facultative pond. Water and Wastewater International, 18(7), 19.
Heilman, D. J., & Hauske, G. J. (2003). Advances in geotextile tube technology. Paper presented at the Coastal Structures 2003 - Proceedings of the Conference, 1001-1012.
Pilarczyk, K.W., 2003. Design of low-crested (submerged) structures—an overview. In: Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering in Developing Countries, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Shin, E. C., & Oh, Y. I. (2003). Analysis of geotextile tube behaviour by large-scale field model tests. Geosynthetics International, 10(4), 134-141. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/gein.10.4.134.37072
Cantre, S. (2002). Geotextile tubes - analytical design aspects. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 20(5),305-319. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(02)00029-8
Mori, H., Miki, H., Tsuneoka, N., Dobashi, K., & Takahashi, I. (2002). Swamp restration using the geo-tube method. Paper presented at the Dredging '02, Key Technologies for Global Prosperity: Proceedings of the Third Specialty Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal, 1789-1797.
Shin, E. C., Ahn, K. S., Oh, Y. I., & Das, B. M. (2002). Construction and monitoring of geotubes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Twelfth (2002) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, , 12 469-473.
Pilarczyk, K.W., 2000. Geosynthetics and Geosystems in Hydraulic and Coastal Engineering. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Plaut, R. H., & Klusman, C. R. (1999). Two-dimensional analysis of stacked geosynthetic tubes on deformable foundations. Thin-Walled Structures, 34(3), 179-194.
27
ReferencesAnonymous (1998). "Tube dunes protect New Jersey beach." Civil Engineering, ASCE, 68(2), 22.
Landin, M. C., Davis, J. E., Blama, R. N., & McLellan, T. N. (1998). Geotextile tube applications as breakwaters for wetland restoration. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1998 ASCE Wetlands Engineering River Restoration Conference, 6.
Plaut, R. H., & Suherman, S. (1998). Two-dimensional analysis of geosynthetic tubes. Acta Mechanica, 129(3-4), 207-218.
Seay, P. A., & Plaut, R. H. (1998). Three-dimensional behavior of geosynthetic tubes. Thin-Walled Structures, 32(4), 263-274. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8231(98)00023-8
Anonymous (1997). "Geotextile tubes are installed in Maryland to fight erosion." Civil Engineering News, May, 14.
Fowler, J. (1997). "Geotextile tubes and flood control." Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN, 15(5), 28-37.
Koerner, R. M., and Soong, T.-Y. (1997). "The evolution of geosynthetics." Civil Engineering, ASCE, 67(7), 62-64.
Fowler, J. (1997). Geotextile tubes and flood control. Geotechnical Fabrics Report, 15(5), 28.
den Adel, H., Hendrikse, C. S. H., and Pilarczyk, K. (1996). "Design and application of geotubes and geocontainers." Proceedings, 1st European Conference on Geosynthetics, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 925-931.
Koerner, R. M., and Koerner, G. R. (1996). "Geotextiles used as flexible forms." Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 14(6), 301-311. 28
156
ReferencesLau, D. T., and Zeng, X. (1996). "Generation and use of simplified uplift shape functions in unanchored cylindrical tanks." Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 118(3), 278-285.
Leshchinsky, D. (1996). "Geotextile tubes." IGS News, 12(3), 14.
Leshchinsky, D., and Leshchinsky, O. (1996). "Geosynthetic confined pressurized slurry (GeoCoPS): Supplemental notes for version 1.0," Technical Report, CPAR-GL-96-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, September.
Leshchinsky, D., Leshchinsky, O., Ling, H. I., and Gilbert, P. A. (1996). "Geosynthetic tubes for confining pressurized slurry: some design aspects." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122(8), 682-690.
Leshchinsky, D., & Leshchinsky, O. (1996). Construction productivity advancement research (CPAR) program: Geosynthetic confined pressurized slurry (GeoCoPS): Supplemental notes for version 1.0. United States:
Miki, H., Yamada, T., Takahashi, I., Kokubo, H., & Sasaki, T. (1996). Experimental study on geotextile tube dehydration method of dredged soil. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1996 1st European Geosynthetics Conference, 933.
Pilarczyk, K. W. (1995). "Geotextile systems for coastal protection - an overview." Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering in Developing Countries, Rio de Janeiro.
de Bruin, P., and Loos, C. (1995). "The use of geotubes as an essential part of an 8.8m high North Sea dike and embankment, Leybucht, Germany." Geosynthetics World, 5(3), 7-10.
Malhotra, P. K. (1995). "Base uplifting analysis of flexibly supported liquid-storage tanks." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 24(12), 1591-1607.
29
ReferencesBreteler, M. K., and van Wijhe, H. J. (1994). "Stability of geotubes and geocontainers." Report, Delft Hydraulics H2029, August.
Bishop, D., Johannsen, K., and Kohlhase, S. (1994). "Recent applications of modern geosynthetics for coastal, canal and river works." Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, G. P. Karunaratne, S. H. Chew, and K. S. Wong, eds., Vol. 2, Singapore, 545-548.
Carroll, R. P. (1994) "Submerged geotextile flexible forms using noncircular cylindrical shapes." Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN, 12(8), 4-15.
Kazimierowicz, K. (1994). "Simple analysis of deformation of sand-sausages." Proceedings, 5th
International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, G. P. Karunaratne, S. H. Chew, and K. S. Wong, eds., Vol. 2, Singapore, 775-778.
Sprague, C. J., and Fowler, J. (1994). "Dredged material-filled geotextile containers: case histories, research and upcoming workshop." Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN 12(8), 42-54.
Bishop, D., von Holwede, L., and Scheffer, H.-J. (1993). "Giant sandbags for emergency protection work." Technical Textiles International, 2(2), 15.
Erchinger, H.F. (1993). "Geotextile tubes filled with sand for beach erosion control, North Sea Coast, Germany." Geosynthetics Case Histories, G. P. Raymond and J.-P. Giroud, eds., BiTech Publishers, Richmond, BC, Canada, 102-103.
Perry, E. B., and Myers, M. (1993). "Innovative methods for levee repair." The REMR Bulletin, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 10(3), 1-6.
Silvester, R., and Hsu, J. R. C. (1993). Coastal Stabilization: Innovative Concepts. Prentice-Hall,
30
157
ReferencesFowler, J., & Sprague, C. J. (1993). Dredged material filled geotextile containers. Paper presented at the Part 3 (of 3), , 3 2415-2428.
Ockels, R. (1991). "Innovative hydraulic engineering with geosynthetics." Geosynthetics World, 2(4), 26-27.
Silvester, R. (1990). "Flexible membrane units for breakwaters." Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering, J. B. Herbich, ed., Vol. 1, Gulf, Houston, 921-938.
Gadd, P. E. (1988). "Sand bag slope protection: design, construction, and performance." Arctic Coastal Processes and Slope Protection Design, A. T. Chen and C. B. Leidersdorf, eds., ASCE, NY, 145-165.
Szyszkowski, W. and Glockner, P.G. (1987). “On the statics of large-scale cylindrical floating membrane containers.” International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 22(4), 275-282.
Perrier, H. (1986). “Use of soil-filled synthetic pillows for erosion protection.” Proceedings, 3rd
International Conference on Geotextiles, Vienna, 1115-1119.
Silvester, R. (1986). "Use of grout-filled sausages in coastal structures." Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 112(1), 95-114.
Kobayashi, N., and Jacobs, B. K. (1985). "Experimental study on sandbag stability and runup." Coastal Zone ’85, O. T. Magoon, et al., eds., Vol. 2, ASCE, NY, 1612-1626.
Namias, V. (1985). “Load-Supporting Fluid-Filled Cylindrical Membranes.” Journal of Applied Mechanics, 52(4), 913-918.
Bogossian, F., Smith, R. T., Vertematti, J. C., and Yazbek, O. (1982). "Continuous retaining dikes by means of geotextiles." Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Geotextiles, Vol. I, Las Vegas, 211-216.
31
ReferencesLiu, G. S. (1981). "Design criteria of sand sausages for beach defense." Proceedings, 19th Congress of the International Association for Hydraulic Research, Vol. 3, New Delhi, India, 123-131.
Armstrong, J. L., and Kureth, C. L. (1979). "Some observations on the Longard tube as a coastal erosion protection structure." Coastal Structures '79, Vol. 1, ASCE, NY, 250-269.
Gutman, A. L. (1979). "Low-cost shoreline protection in Massachusetts." Coastal Structures ’79, 1, ASCE, NY, 373-387.
Porraz, M, Maza, J. A., and Medina, R. (1979). "Mortar-filled containers, lab and ocean experience." Coastal Structures ’79, 1, ASCE, NY, 270-289.
Liu, G. S., and Silvester, R. (1977). "Sand sausages for beach defense work." Proceedings, 6th
Australasian Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 340-343.
Delft Hydraulics Laboratory (1975a). "Artificial islands in the Beaufort-sea: comparison of stability of shore protection with gabions and sand sausages." Report, M1271 part III, February.
Delft Hydraulics Laboratory (1975b). "Artificial islands in the Beaufort-sea: stability of shore protection with sand sausages on a circular island." Report, M1271 part V, May.
32
158
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Stability of Geotubes and Research Needs presented by Mohammed A. Gabr, PhD.
159
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title: Use of Poor Quality Geo-Material in Geotextile Tubes for Structural Applications
Author: Douglas A. Gaffney, P.E.
Affiliation and Contact Information:Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc.
(856) 248-1200
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.6
160
1
Poor Quality Geo-Materials
Fine-grained (silts and clays)
Often cohesive
Low bearing capacity
Critical Shear VelocityRelated to % Water content and grain size
2
Velocity to Grain Size Relationship
Source: Kennett, 1982
161
3
Geotextile TubesTesting
Bench Scale (mud balance - % solids by weight)
Hanging Bag (decant flow rate, TSS, vane shear)
Structures to prevent erosionScour aprons
Tubes
Shear StressWaves - loss of material due to piping
Currents
4
Mud Balance
162
5
Hanging Bag
6
Erosion Control
163
7
USACE Drakes Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project, Hendersonville, TN
Source: USACE, 1999
8
Drakes Creek Ecosystem Restoration ProjectEnvironmental Benefits
Cooler, deeper waterDiscourage waterfowl at riverbankWetland habitatUpland habitatMinimize soil erosionGravel beds (fish habitat)Return native species
164
9
USACE Drakes Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project, Hendersonville, TN
Source: USACE, 1999
10
Drakes Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project
22,000 cubic yards dredged materialSandy silts and clays
Required dewatering area
2,100 linear feet dike13 acre sub-embayment
8,000 cubic yards of stone required
Shallow water depths
165
11
Geotechnical Borings
12
Typical Geotechnical Results
166
13
Drakes Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project
Tubes45-ft circumference, woven polyester
Woven polypropylene scour aprons
Nonwoven UV shroud
Filled with poor quality sandy clay, organics and gravel.
14
Dredged Material
167
15
Dredged Material
16
Mechanical Dredge
168
17
Construction Equipment
18
Geotextile Dispenser
169
19
Scour Apron
20
Installation 2000
170
21
Butt Joints
22
Installation 2000
171
23
Installation 2000
24
Installation 2000
172
25
Dredged Material
26
Dredged Material
173
27
Installation 2000
28
Installation 2000
174
29
Connection to Upland
30
Wildlife
175
31
Dike
32
Vegetation
176
33
Phase II
Continued dredging and placement into the containment area
Proposed planting of the tube dike
34
Drakes Creek Project 2008
Source: Live Search Maps
177
35
Nyack Municipal MarinaWestern Bank of the Hudson River
36
Dredging Project GoalsRemove 1,800 CY of fine-grained, Hudson River sediment
Quickly and Cost-effectively
Populated setting
Dewater the slurry - alternatives consideredOpen air disposal
Filter presses
Geotextile tubes
178
37
Dredging
38
Tube FillingTube Filling
179
39
Polymeric ConditioningChemical feed pump
Polydialymethyl / ammonium chloride
Cationic Polymer
Initial dosage rate 20 gallons per hour (approximately 167 ppm)
Static mixer
40
Enhanced Settling
180
41
TESTINGPercent Solids
Initial – 10 –15% solids
After 1 week – 25 -30% solids
After 2 months – 50% solids
Specific Gravity of dry solids – 2.45
ClassificationMH elastic silt
42
Testing
Paint Filter TestEPA method 9095a
Determines whether a landfill considers the material to be dry
181
43
Sample Paint Filter Test(June 30, 2003)
Percent Solids(April 30, 2003)
Percent Solids(June 30, 2003)
Tube 1 Passed 56
Tube 2 Passed 47
Tube 3 Passed 54
Tube 4 Passed 29.8 55
Tube 5 Passed 49
Tube 6 Passed 27.5 - lower24.9 - upper
49
Dewatering Results
44
Dredged Material Properties
182
45
Dredged material is dry, now what?Truck to a landfill
Costly tipping fees and transportation
Beneficial UsePoor geotechnical properties
CBR – 3.43
Quick lime amendmentHydrating excess moisture
Make soil more compactable
Increase shear strength
46
Lime Amendment
Moisture content in Moisture content in September September –– 96.8%96.8%
Optimum moisture Optimum moisture content content –– 42% 42%
183
47
Lime AmendmentAfter two hours curing, After two hours curing, 10% lime addition 10% lime addition resulted in 67% resulted in 67% increase in shear increase in shear strengthstrength
After two hours curing, After two hours curing, 15% lime addition 15% lime addition resulted in doubling of resulted in doubling of shear strengthshear strength
Quick lime or masonry Quick lime or masonry limelime
48
Parking Lot DesignParking Lot in town needed to be regraded for better water flow
Requires fill material
Dredged material would be sufficient quantity for subbase fill
Requires approximately 146,000 pounds of lime (approximately $17,000)
184
49
ConclusionsGeotextile tubes used as the main structural component for ecosystem restoration
Beneficial use of poor quality dredged material
Dramatically decrease erodability
Geotextile tubes provide cost effective and rapid dewatering of poor quality material
With or without polymers
50
ReferencesGaffney, D.A., Wells, L., Wickoren, D., and Skelton, B.A., “Environmental Benefits of Dredged Material Contained in Geotextile Tubes – Drakes Creek, Tennessee,” Proceedings of IECA Conference 32, February 5-9, 2001, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Gaffney, D.A. and Gorleski, E.S., “Dewatering and Amending Dredged Material for Beneficial Use,” Geo-Frontiers 2005, Austin, TX, January 2005.
Kennett, J. P., "Marine Geology," Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982.
USACE "Drakes Creek Section 1135 Ecosystem Restoration Report" Nashville District, 1999.
185
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Use of Poor Quality Geo-Material in Geotextile Tubes for Structural Applications by Douglas A. Gaffney, P.E.
186
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title:
Chemical Treatment of Dredged Solids
Author:
Dewey W. Hunter
Affiliation and Contact Information: NAFTA Dredging Ciba Corporation (813) 767-2829 [email protected]
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.7
187
Ciba Corporation – Key Facts
Corp. HQ in Basel, Switzerland
U.S. Corp. HQ in Tarrytown, New York
Our products and services are sold in over 120 countries on all continents.
We employ 14,000 people
60 production sites in 23 countries.
22 R&D centers in 11 countries.
Sales 6.0+ billion CHF (5.0 billion USD) in three major market areas: Europe, the Americas and Asia-Pacific.
The company‘s roots go back to 1758 when J.R. Geigy founded the first chemical company in Basel, trading in chemicals and dyes. 1
Ciba History
1970
Ciba-Geigy
J. R. GeigyFounded in 1758
CibaFounded in 1884
1996
Sandoz Pharm.
Novartis
1998Allied Colloids
1997
Ciba Specialty Chemicals
2004
RaisioChemicals
20002006Performance PolymersTextile Effects
Ciba Corporation2007
2
188
Water & PaperTreatment
Ciba Corporation Business Structure
WaterTreatment
PaperTreatment
Detergents & Hygiene
Business Lines
IndustrialWater
Management
Monomers & Intermediates
Water &Wastewater
Services
PerformanceIntermediates
AgricultureExtractive &
ProcessTechnologies
Business Segments
Global Industry Market Centers
U.S. HQ in Suffolk, VA
- Municipal Potable Water Clarification, Thickening, and Dewatering- Municipal Wastewater Clarification, Thickening, and Dewatering- Industrial Process Water Clarification, Thickening, Dewatering, and Wastewater Treatment- Dredging Clarification, Thickening, and Dewatering
3
CoatingEffects
Plastic Additives
BL Water & Paper Treatment Sites
Kwinana (au)
Wyong (au)
Pischelsdorf (at)
Suffolk (us)West Memphis (us)
Berwick (us)St. Nicholas (ca)
Serang (JV Intercipta) (id)
Estrada (br)Paulinia (br)
Guangzhou (cn) Suzhou (cn) Zhenjiang (cn)
Cheonan (kr)
Ankleshwar (in)
BL PaperBL Water TreatmentBL Detergents & Hygiene
Shouguang (JV Ruikang) (cn)
Kaipiainen (fi) Raisio (fi) Mietoinen (fi) Kokemäki (fi)
Lapua (fi)
Grenzach (de)
Grimsby (uk)
St. Denis (fr)
Monthey (ch)
Ribecourt (fr)
Vanzaghello (it)
Bradford (uk)
Aberdeen (uk)
Merak (id)
Sens (fr)
McIntosh (us)
Toulouse (fr) Guturribay (es)
Tolosa (es)
4
189
PIANC Classification of SoilsSoil Type Particle Size – microns (10-6
meters)Sieve Size
Boulders > 200,000 6 in
Cobbles 60,000 – 200,000 3 – 6 in
Gravels - Coarse 20,000 – 60,000 ¾ - 3 in
- Medium 6,000 – 20,000 ¼ - ¾ in
- Fine 2,000 – 6,000 # 7 Sieve – ¼ in
Sands - Coarse 600 – 2,000 # 25 - # 7
- Medium 200 – 600 # 72 - # 25
- Fine 60 – 200 # 200 - # 72
Silts - Coarse 20 – 60 Passing # 200
- Medium 6 – 20 “
- Fine 2 – 6 “
Clays < 2 “
Dredging “Fines” < 75 microns ; particles passing thru 200 mesh sieveCohesive Sediments < 62.5 microns
Colloidal Particles 0.001 – 1.0 microns
Suspended Solids < 45 microns5
Why Use Chemical Treatment?• To Treat Problematic Sediments
– Particles < 75 microns (“fines”)– Contaminated sediments
• To Enhance Volume Reduction
• To Improve Process Efficiencies – Higher solids loading (wt. of solids/unit time)– Improved solids-liquid separation in less time
• Consolidate• Thicken• Dewater
– Higher hydraulic loading (gall./unit time)– Create cleaner discharge water
• Supernatant• Filtrate • Centrate
– Higher solids removal efficiency (capture rate)• [(solids in – solids out)/solids in] x 100%
• To Provide Overall Project Economy– Cost-benefit analysis
Proven Technology for Water/Wastewater Treatment6
190
Chemical Polymer Types (Organic)
NATURAL• Proteins
• Gums
• Starch
• Cellulose
SYNTHETIC• Plastics
PolyethylenePVC
• RubbersPolybutadiene
• Water SolublePolyacrylamidePolyDMDAACPolyamine
7
What are Polymers?• Synthetic (man made) chemicals• Organic (carbon based)
– Long chains (macromolecules) of single monomer units via polymerization; longer chain ~ higher relative molecular weight
• Water soluble• Polyelectrolytes• Used extensively
– Sold in U.S. since 1950’s – Municipal potable H2O and wastewater, industrial process and
wastewater, mineral tailings, oil recovery, aggregate washing, soil conditioning
8
191
Greek EnglishPOLY MEROS MANY PARTS
Large Molecule Made Up Of Simple Repeating Chemical Units of Carbon (Monomers)
What Are Polymers Made Of?
ACRYLAMIDE (Monomer)
C NH2=
O
CH2=CH
FREE RADICAL ACRYLAMIDECH2 CH*
C NH2
=
O
C NH2=
O
CH2=CH+
CH2 CH
C NH2
=
O
C NH2=
O
CH2 C*POLYACRYLAMIDE
+ Chemical Initiators
9
Polymers in Dredging
• Used in U.S. dredging more than 30 years– USACE tech. reports and engineering manuals
• Low usage vs. total cubic yardage• Upland disposal/treatment/dewatering • Fine grained sediments
– Silts and clays (organic or inorganic)– High surface area-to-mass ratio
• Particles attract and exhibit electrical charge • Colloidal suspensions
• Highly organic soils or substrates• Contaminated sediments
10
192
Chemical Characteristics of Polymers
Charge Density
Molecular Weight
Medium
Low
0 +50% +100%-50%-100%
NonionicAnionic Cationic
Organic Coagulants(poly DMDAAC, polyamine)
Inorganic Coagulants(lime, alum, iron salts)
Dispersants(polyacrylic acid)
Flocculants(Polyacrylamide)
Flocculants(Polyacrylamide)
11
High
Chemical Treatment Options - ExamplesAddition #1 Addition #2 Addition #3
Cationic Organic Coagulant
N/A N/A
Cationic Inorganic Coagulant
N/A N/A
Cationic Flocculant N/A N/A
Anionic Flocculant N/A N/A
Cationic Organic Coagulant
Anionic Flocculant N/A
Cationic Inorganic Coagulant
Anionic Flocculant N/A
Anionic Flocculant Cationic Flocculant N/A
Cationic Inorganic Coagulant
Cationic Organic Coagulant
Anionic Flocculant12
193
STEP 1: COAGULATION
Coagulants (Organic and Inorganic)- Low molecular weight - Very high cationic (+) charge density
Coagulation- Destabilize repulsion between particles- Allow particles to agglomerate- Produce small “floc” that may settle
13
CoagulationCoagulation
_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _
SUSPENSIONLike-charged particles
repel one another
ATTRACTIONVan der Waals
attractionpredominates
_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _
_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _+
Coagulant
14
_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ + + + +
++++++ ++++++ + + + _+ + + + + + _ + + ++ ++ +
_ ++++++ ++++++ _+ + + + + + + + + + + +
194
STEP 2: FLOCCULATION
Flocculants (Anionic, Cationic, Nonionic)- Wide molecular weight range; higher than coagulants- Wide charge density range- Destabilize repulsion between particles; not as well as
coagulants
Flocculation- Allows agglomeration to occur; more effective than
coagulants- Size of molecule allows for “netting” action- Produces large “floc” that tends to readily separate from
water and settle
15
BRIDGING FLOCCULATIONHigh MW Flocculant
Initial AdsorptionOnto Particle Flocculation
_ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
_ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
+ + + + ++ + +
+ + + ++ + + + + + +
_ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
_ _ __ _ _ _ __ _
_ _ _
16
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
195
Chemical Usage Considerations for Dredging:• Project Scope
– In-situ cubic yards (volume), % Total Solids (by weight), Dry Tons Solids (weight)
– Project duration and hrs/day operation– Discharge water back into waterway?– Seasonal effects?
• Aquatic Toxicity– Ecotox and/or NSF data for all chemicals (MSDS)– Contact state or local agencies for requirements– Permits
• Substrate Testing– Representative core sampling data (In-situ % Total Solids)– Historical test or project data – Chemical(s) selection (charge & mol. wt. demand)– Dosage requirement (ppm = mg/L, or in lbs. chemical/dry ton solids)
• Physical Form of Chemical– Dry, oil-based liquid, water-based solution– Dictates safety, handling, storage, and makedown 17
Chemical Usage Considerations for Dredging:
• Associated Equipment– Chemical handling, storage, makedown, metering, monitoring– Electrical and water supply
• Applications Knowledge and Expertise– In-house consultant or chemical supplier with experience
• Cost-Benefit Analysis– Costs of chemical usage vs. benefits – Overall operating costs– Costs of various options
• Project Budgeting– Consider and include all costs up front, not as an add-on later
18
196
Containerized Liquid Polymer Makedown System
Dimensions: 20’x8’x8’
Gross Weight: 8,000 lbs.
Water Needs: 100 gpm @ 40 psi
Power Needs: 100 kW generator 19
Inline Dilution
Skid
Polymer DosageController
Density Measurement
Liquid PolymerMakedown Unit
Polymer MakedownWater Booster Pump
PolymerSolutionMetering
Pump
DilutionWater
BoosterPump
PolymerSolution
Metering Pump VFD
20
197
System Layout - Example
Dredge Pipeline
DensityMeasurement
Polymer SolutionMetering Pump
Dil. H2OBoosterPump
PolymerMakedown
H2O BoosterPump
Liquid PolymerMakedown Unit
InlineDilution
Skid
Polymer SolutionMetering Pump VFD
Polymer DosageController
LiquidPolymer
Generator
Flowmeter
Containerized Liquid Polymer
Makedown System
Polymer Solution Mix and Holding Tank
Clean Water Supply
Polymer Solution
Not Drawn to Scale
21
Challenges for the SERRI-DHS Application
Following a disaster: Clean water supply for polymer makedownAvailability of containerized polymer makedownsystem(s)Availability of sufficient polymer supplyCorrect polymer selection and dosage levels required
Salt water vs. freshwater inundation
Transport/placement into target areaRegulatory or ecotox issues
22
198
Polymer Treatment Demonstration
Substrate: Organic clay sampleLocation: New Orleans, LASlurry Solids: ~ 6.2% Total Solids (wt/wt)Polymer Dosage:~ 3.0 lbs. polymer / dry ton solids
CHARACTERISTIC RESULT
Sample Type Organic Clay in Rainwater
pH 7.5
Physical Characteristics Dark Brown Color
Dry Solids 9.16%
Specific Gravity (of slurry) 1.079
Particle Size
- d10 4.54um
- d50 19.87um
- d90 104.2um
Mean 14.51um
Surface Area 10317cm2/ml
Organics & Volatiles 14.62%
Polymer Dosage relates to approximately: 1.0 lb. of polymer for every 1,227.90 gallons of 6.2% T.S. slurry1.0 lb. of polymer for every 6.08 cubic yards of 6.2% T.S. slurry
GDT Pillow Test Results – Oct. 27, 2008Substrate: Organic clay sampleLocation: New Orleans, LASlurry Solids: 11.51 % Total Solids (wt/wt)Polymer Dosage: 3.0 lbs. polymer / dry ton solids
Sample Cake Depth* (cm) Dry Solids(%)
Yield Stress (Pa)After plunging
20 50 100
Corner 1 2.5 36.48 2694 2681 2674
Corner 2 3 38.23 2744 2738 2739
Center 5 40.53 2834 2834 2837
Corner 3 4 39.57 2795 2788 2784
Corner 4 4.5 40.14 2829 2829 2825
Results Obtained After 2 Hours
199
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Chemical Treatment of Dredged Solids
by Dewey W. Hunter
200
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title:
Specification and Testing of
Geotextile Tubes
Author:
George R. Koerner, Ph.D., PE &CQA
Affiliation and Contact Information: Geosynthetic Institute (GSI) 475 Kedron Ave. Folsom PA 19033, USA
(610) 522-8440 or [email protected]
www.geosynthetic-institute.org
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.8
201
1
Presentation Outline
Background
Manufacturing
Specification
Discussion Items
2
Liquid Limit
202
3
GS and soft soils
Walls, slopes and embankments
MESL
4
Polymeric Materials
polymer = poly (“many”) & mero(“parts”)
characterized by high molecular weight, Mw = 10,000 to 100,000
there are thousands of polymers
Geotextiles use only a few
203
5
Common Geotextile Polymers
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Polypropylene (PP)
6
Geotextile Manufacturing
204
7
PP and PET Manufacturing
PolypropylenePolyester
8
Polypropylene and PolyesterPolyester (PET)Polypropylene (PP)
Type Resin Plasticizer Fillers C.B. Additives* PP 95-98 0 0 2-3 1-2 PET 97-98 0 0 1 1-2
*Additives are various antioxidants
205
9
Carbon Black and Additives
Concentrate Let-Down
10
206
11
12
PET Durability requirementsMinimum Mw = 25,000
Max CEG = 30
207
13
MFI
14
Extruder
208
15
Extruding Yarns
16
209
17
Manufacturing Wovens Geotextile
18
210
19
20
Anchor Tubes on Both Sides of Main Tube
211
21
Geotextile Tube Specification
Need existed for generic MQC specificationsGSI assembled three main manufacturers at the time (1997)Several meetings of ad-hoc committeeGRI-GT10, Application specific specification for “Coastal and Riverine structures.”Original approved by GSI membership on September 27, 1999Specification addresses
PropertiesTest MethodsUnitsLimiting test valuesFrequencies
22
Main Tube Circumference
factory manufactured in six circumferences, maximum size is 5.7 m (19 ft.)
Typical lengths include but are not limited to, 2.3; 4.6; 6.8; 9.1; 14 and 18 m
(7.5; 15; 22.5; 30; 45 and 60 ft.)
212
23
Anchor Tube Circumference
0.9 or 1.8 m (3 or 6 ft.) circumference
connected to main tube by a fabric scour apron
some designs call for two anchors
24
Wide Width and Seam Properties
Property ASTM Aggressive Typical
strength D4595 175 × 175 kN/m
(1000 × 1000 lb/in.)
70 × 95 kN/m
(400 × 550 lb/in.)
elongation D4595 15 × 15% 20 × 20%
seam D4884 105 kN/m
(600 lb/in.)
60 kN/m
(350 lb/in.)
(a) Main Tube Properties
(b) Anchor Tube Properties
Property ASTM Aggressive Typical
strength D4595 70 × 95 kN/m
(400 × 550 lb/in.)
70 × 95 kN/m
(400 × 550 lb/in.)
elongation D4595 20 × 20% 20 × 20%
seam D4884 60 kN/m
(350 lb/in.)
35 kN/m
(200 lb/in.)
213
25
Tensile Strength ASTM D4595
26
Tensile Strength ASTM D4595
Demgen gripsNon-contact extensometer
214
27
Commentary on WWT:Important property which is hotly contestedGrips can not initiate failure and break must occur within the gage length2, 5, 10% Modulus often used for design1.25% preload of expected breaking force is allowed in methodGood specimen preparation is critical
28
ASTM D4884 SEAM STRENGTH
215
29
Types ofGeotextile Seams
SewThermal bond Glue
Use thread of contrasting color to geotextile for CQA continuity check
29
30
Sewn Seam Test ASTM D4884
30
216
31( )100
StrengthFabric
StrengthSeam(%) Efficiency =
1,000 ppi
32
Trapezoidal Tear Strength
location aggressive typical
main tube 2.7 × 2.7 kN
(600 × 600 lb)
0.8 × 1.2 kN
(180 × 270 lb)
anchor tube 0.8 × 1.2 kN
(180 × 270 lb)
0.8 × 1.2 kN
(180 × 270 lb)
• Follows ASTM D4533
• Frequency is every 7500 m2 (10,000 yd2)
217
33
Trap Tear ASTM D4533
34
Puncture Strength
location aggressive typical
main tube 1.8 kN
(400 lb)
1.2 kN
(260 lb)
anchor tube 1.2 kN
(260 lb)
0.7 kN
(160 lb)
• follows ASTM D4833• its called “pin” puncture• uses a 8.0 mm (5/16 in.) probe
• frequency is every 10,000 yd2 (7500 m2)
218
35
Puncture ASTM D4833
36
Apparent Opening Sizeits dry bead sieving, per ASTM D4751AOS is often called EOSit’s a maximum value, i.e., “max. ave.”either 095 in mm, or equivalent U. S. sieve size
frequency is every 40,000 m2 (50,000 yd2)
location aggressive typical
main tube 0.425 mm
(No. 40)
0.425 mm
(No. 40)
anchor tube 0.425 mm
(No. 40)
0.60 mm
(No. 30)
219
37
Apparent Opening Size ASTM D4751
38
Water Flow Rate
uses ASTM D4491
measures flow rate/unit area
frequency is every 40,000 m2 (50,000 yd2)
location aggressive typical
main tube 240 l/min-m2
(6.0 gal/min-ft2)
240 l/min-m2
(6.0 gal/min-ft2)
anchor tube 240 l/min-m2
(6.0 gal/min-ft2)
240 l/min-m2
(6.0 gal/min-ft2)
220
39
ASTM D4491 – Water Flow Rate (Permittivity) Device
40
Permittivity ASTM D4991
221
41
Ultraviolet Resistance
follows ASTM D4355
it’s the Xenon Arc device
measures strength retained after 150 hrs. exposure
must be ≥ 65% of original
frequency is every year
42
Typical Xenon Arc Weatherometer
Interior Chamber of Xenon ArcWeatherometer
222
43
The Basic Tables follow
Main and Anchor Tubes – Aggressive
Main and Anchor Tubes – Typical
Note: The most recent version of this specification (text and tables) is available on the GSI Web Site
www.geosynthetic-institute.org
44
223
45
46
Regarding MARV
minimum average roll value
accommodates variation in GT properties
statistically it’s the “μ-2σ” value
Shown in following slides
224
47
SAMPLE
Roll
Width
3’
S-1
S-2S-3
S-4S-5
S-6S-7
MD
MD
3’
SampleXMD
Take Specimens from above Sample and Test as Required
S-8
Field Sampling to Obtain
Average Roll Value
XMD
Rolllength
48
Test
Number
Roll Number
1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average =
643N
627
652
629
632
641
662
635
640
627N
615
621
616
619
621
622
628
621
637N
643
628
662
646
633
619
636
638
642N
646
658
641
635
642
658
662
648
652N
641
639
657
642
651
641
645
646
637N
624
631
620
618
633
641
625
629
Thus, MARV = 621 N
125-216-343
225
49
Workshop Discussion Items (WDI)
Purposely Omitted Tests Mass per unit area (weight)Thickness
Performance testing: HBT per GRI-GT14, FFF per GRI-GT8 and PF per GRI-GT15 testsEndurance testing of coatingsConnections and repair testingInstallation Storage and Handling per GRI-GT11Geotexile tubes manufacturered on circular loomAccreditation
50
Hanging Bag Test (per GRI-GT12)
Koerner, G. R. and Koerner, R. M. (2006), “Geotextile Tube Assessment Using a Hanging Bag Test,” Jour. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 24, No. 2, April, 2006, pp. 129-137.
226
51
52
227
53
54
Silty Harbor Sediments
228
55
Low Permeability Filter Cake is Troublesome
56
Commentary on HBT:AOS and permittivity are poor predictors of behavior for these GT as tubesthis pertains to both water flow rate and passing soil/sediment gradationfine sediment/sludges are the most challenging w/r to filtration designHBT is reasonable from a qualitative “go/no go” perspective; with or without coagulantNeed to standardize pass fail criteriaThis is a CQA rather than a MQC test
229
57
Other Performance Tests
58
230
59
Coatings: GT is susceptible to UV and Temperature degradation
Koerner, G. R., Hsuan, Y. G. and Koerner, R. M. (1998), "Photo-Initiated Degradation of Geotextiles," Jour. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 124(12), 1159-1166.
60
231
61
Lab needs to be accredited
Model program after ISO 17025
On-site audits
Annual proficiency tests
Pass/Fail based on proper equipment, documentation & good test results
GAI-LAP Accreditation
2008
62
GRI-GT11 Installation, Handling and Storage
GT is susceptible to installation damage
Rolls are heavy and require special construction equipment to lift and fill
Do NOT push, slide or drag Geotextile tubes
Storage for longer than 6 months requires special precautions
Geoxtextiles cannot be trafficked
232
63
Concluding Comments MQC specification for GT tube was presentedfocuses on geotubes for coastal and river structures; however sludge dewatering is a large application area for geotextile tubesmain tubes can be enormoushydraulic filled with sand to prevent erosion however, many other infills possibleaggressive vs. typical conditions are listed, but subjectiveHopefully WDI were provocative
233
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Specification and Testing of Geotextile Tubes by George R. Koerner, Ph.D., PE &CQA.
234
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title: Analysis and Design of Geotextile Tubes
Author: Dov Leshchinsky, PhD
Affiliation and Contact Information: University of Delaware Ph: (302) 831-2446 Fax: (302) 831-3640 Email:[email protected]
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.9
235
1
ReferencesLeshchinsky, D., Leshchinsky, O., Ling, H.I. and Gilbert, P.A., "Geosynthetic Tubes for Confining Pressurized Slurry: Some Design Aspects," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 122(8),1996, pp. 682-690.
Leshchinsky, D., "Issues in Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil,“ Keynote paper, International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, Kyushu, Japan, Vol. II, 1993, pp. 871-897.
Leshchinsky, D. and Leshchinsky, O., "Geosynthetic Confined Pressurized Slurry (GeoCoPS): Supplemental Notes for Version 1.0," Report TR CPAR-GL-96-1, 1996, USACOE, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
2
Structure of TubesTubes are made of geotextile sheets sewn
together to form a shell capable of confining pressurized slurry
Critical: construction stage/seam strength
236
3
Objectives: Find sectional geometry and geotextile stresses
4
Idealization for simple analysis:Problem is 2-DGeotextile shell is flexible, thin and weightlessElongation of geotextile is negligibleSlurry in tube produces hydrostatic stressesShear between geotextile and slurry is negligibleFoundation is leveled and relatively stiff
237
5
Formulation: Formulation: NotationNotation
Equilibrium in direction
of r along dS:
r(x) = T / p(x)
6
FormulationRadius of curvature = Differential equation :
r(x) = [1+(y’)2]3/2 / y’’
Combine equations of r(x):
T y’’ – (p0+ γx) [1+(y’)2]3/2 = 0
Nature of numerical solution:
y = f(x|T, p0, h, γ)
238
7
Impose Physical Constraintsy = f(x|T, p0, h, γ) γ is known Unknowns: function y(x) and design parameters T, p0, h Specify one parameter Impose two physical constraints to solve:p • b = W ⇒ b = W / (p0 + γ h)Replace b with L (L is meaningful physical constraint) Because of symmetry, tangent at (0,0) must be horizontal
8
Solve:
y = f(x|T, p0, h, γ)
For given
(L, γ) and p0
or (L, γ) and T
or (L, γ) and h
239
9
Axial Load• 2-D section yields resultant force in the longitudinal
direction Reaction force is evenly distributed along the geotextile circumference.
10
Experimental Verification
Liu (1981) used mortar-filled 2.5 m long tubes (Polyvinyl Chloride Tubes)
p at bottom:
1.73 kPa
240
11
Experimental Verificationp at bottom:3.86 kPa
12
Experimental VerificationSlurry is twice as heavy as water
241
13
Sensitivity to Pumping Pressure
14
Geotextile Strength
Tult = Twork (Fid • Fcr • Fbd • Fcd • Fss)
Tult = short-term strength of geotextile
Twork = calculated tensile force during pumping in circumferential or axial direction
Fid = reduction for installation damage
Fcr = reduction for creep
Fbd = reduction for biological degradation
Fcd = reduction for chemical degradation
Fss = reduction for seam strength
242
15
Geotextile AOS: AASHTO, TF 25 (just an example as it is outdated; use relevant ASTM test procedure)
For soil with 50%>+#200, use AOS>#30 (O95<0.59 mm)For soil with 50%>+#200, use AOS>#30 (O95<0.59 mm)Is this filtration criterion universally valid? Will it guarantee that the geotextile will not clog? Will it guarantee acceptable retention of particles? When in question, use real fill material for evaluation.
16
Selecting AOS with hydrodynamics can be Selecting AOS with hydrodynamics can be challengingchallenging
17
Case HistoryCase History
18
Gaillard Island Experiment
Pumping through 20 cm branch pipe
Tubes attained asymmetrical elliptical shape, about 1.5 m high and 3.5 m wide
Pumping pressure never exceeded 30 kPa
243
19
Gaillard Island Experiment
Four tubes, each 150 m longTubes fabricated from two 4.2 m wide sewn woven sheetsStrength: 70 kN/m in warp and 45 kN/m in fill directionEOS for two was #70 and for the other two #100Clay fill: LL=120, PL=32, PI=88Two tubes lined with inner nonwoven geotextile
20
Grading Before Tube Deployment
21
Base Ready to Receive Tube
22
Deployment of First Tube
244
23
Connecting Pipe to Inlet
24
Pipe Connected to Inlet
25
Start of Pumping
26
One Hour Later…
245
27
Even the Birds Were Amazed…
28
Consistency of Pumped Material
29
Small Amount of Fines Washing Out Immediately After Pumping
30
Small Amount of Fines Washing Out Immediately After Pumping
246
31
Small Amount of Fines Washing Out Immediately After Pumping
32
Blocked Inlet Immediately After Pumping
33
Crest is Graded to Receive 3rd Tube
34
Pumping into Tube on Crest
247
35
Twisting and Sliding of Tube
36
Sample for Water Content Shortly After Pumping
37
Clean Water Seeping Due to Filtration (1 Hour After Pumping)
38
Water Content Along Tube
Time [days]
Location [m]
Unit Weight [kN/m3]
Water Content[%]
0 0 12.3 214
0 70 11.7 284
0 140 11.5 308
30 0 13.2 127
30 70 12.7 153
30 140 11.7 286
248
39
About One Month After Pumping
40
About One Month After Pumping
41
About 6 Months After Pumping
42
Local Rupture of Seam…
249
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Analysis and Design of Geotextile Tubes presentation by Dov Leshchinsky, PhD
250
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title:
Installation and Performance of Geotextile Tubes
Author:
Nate Lovelace (Presenter) and Ed Herman
Affiliation and Contact Information:
Corps of Engineers, Mobile District
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.10
251
1
Covering Your Bases
PERMITS
BORROW SOURCE
FOUNDATION
ALIGNMENT
TOLERANCES
EQUIPMENT
SCHEDULE
2
Getting Started
Practice Tube (if possible)
First Tube is the WORST
Trench or cradle
Plenty of Straps
Plan for run-off
Always order extra bags
252
3
Trial Run
4
253
5
6
254
7
8
255
9
10
256
11
12
257
13
14
258
15
16
259
17
18
260
19
20
261
21
22
262
23
24
263
25
Problems
Fill Port Patches
High Wind
Constant Elevation
Joints
Terminating the Ends
Curious People
26
264
27
265
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Installation and Performance of Geotextile Tubes by Nate Lovelace and Ed Herman.
266
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title:
HSARPA - SERRI Water-Filled Technologies for Rapid Repair of Levee Breaches
Author: Don Resio, PhD
Affiliation and Contact Information:Senior Research Scientist
US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and
Development Center (ERDC)
Ph: (601) 642-2018
Fax: (601) 634-2055
Email: [email protected] Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.11
267
1
Potential Levee and Dam Breaches Represent a Major Problem in Many Areas of the US
New Orleans areaSacramento areaLake OkeechobeeRivers in MidwestEtc.
2
Breaching of large earthen levees typically develops quickly. Effective levee repair must be emplaced within a few hours of the initial breach.
268
3
Little or no access by landor water
Staging areas are almostnonexistent
Often only helicopterairdrops are possible
Logistics Limitations:
269
4
Simplified Stage-Volume CurveMetro New Orleans
Bottom Line Time isMoney!At least 1.5 feet of the flood level in MetroNew Orleans was dueto water entering thecity after 1300 CDT onthe 29th
The increased cost dueto this 1.5 feet of waterwas
$1.5 BILLION
270
5
4
271
6
3
272
7
2
273
8
FY 07 start for a new DHS innovation project:
Rapid Repair of Levee Breach
9
Just because a problem is important does notmean that it can be solved. This problem hasbeen around for a long time and has been viewedby many as intractable.
Major Complications Include:1. Time for effective solution can be very short;2. Little or no site access and logistics support;3. Forces required to stop flow are huge; 4. Breach shape can be very irregular;5. Anchoring forces can be extremely large; and6. Stability of adjacent levees can be suspect.
Many innovative ideas were investigated• rapid construction methods• large gated structures• special high-tech materials (unobtainium?)
However, Given the time/logistics constraints on thisproject we began to recognize that most ofthese could not presently meet our needs
And We began to focus on an area that we havebeen a leader in for many years – marineconstruction with fabrics
274
10
Figure . Final design drawing for ATD RIB.
Figure X. RIB used in FY 96 field study.
Figure X. RIB System used during ATD in Dec 2002.The world’slargest marinefabric structure
275
11
Fabrics have been usedin structures since thelate 19th century –
primarily in a simple“tension” mode.
Vladimir Shukhov’s Oval Pavilion 1896
276
12
Typical fabric use in construction:In tension (e.g. roofs, bridges, etc.)Under pressure (e.g. tires, domes, etc.)To create beams that can carry moments.
Air-beam structure at US Army NatickLab in Natick, Massachusetts
Each of these modesof application had shortcomings forRRLB
13
In addition to the 3 modes of application alreadymentioned, water is frequently used today tocreate “ballast” inside of fabric tubes.
In this case, the tubes contain internal baffles toprevent them from rolling, since they are typicallydeployed over relatively flat terrain.
This is effective on flat surfaces but not in levee-breach situations.
Ballast comes only from theportion of contained waterabove the adjacent watersurface and would be verydifficult to deploy while over-topping is occurring.
277
14
Over a 13 month interval :
• Assembled an expert team of innovative engineers and scientists from within our laboratory and theprivate sector (Oceaneering & Kepner Plastics).
• Developed fundamentals for understanding the problem - hydrodynamics, geomorphology, geo-technical properties, structural requirements, etc.
• Examined a wide range of solution concepts• Down-selected the best concepts• Tested through a cycle of smaller scales (1:50&1:16)• Designed large-scale (1:4) tests • Constructed and demonstrated at ARS, Stillwater
15
Why Stillwater and why 1:4 scale?ARS-HERU is one of the largest facilities in US.Flow rates of 100 to 125 cfs sustainable.Still a very difficult problem.Solutions should be scalable to full scale.
278
16
Three different types of water-filled fabric concepts were tested:
Rapid Spillway/Earthen Dam Protection:Protect earthen section from breachingduring high flow, while allowing overtopping(uses a simple lightweight ballasting concept)
Long Shallow Breach:Seal a very long breach either before orduring interval of water flow through it(does not depend on breach side support)
Deep/Steep Breaches (two times): Seal a significant breach while wateris moving through it at high velocity(uses sections near breach for support)
17
Even in a1:4 scale test forces can be very large –
•Only about 5200 pounds of water is held back;but shutting down the flow in 1 secondresults in a force that is 100 times greater!!•Even this test would require a 32-inch to 40-inch“I-beam” with a steel plate to block theflow. This would weigh about 5000 pounds•And for conventional moment-bearing materialsit gets much worse at full scale (approximatelya factor of 256 times heavier) for a breach thatis 4 times larger than the test breach today.•And you would still have to figure out how to seal the edges
279
18
Once, we began to examine what was gained by having a levee or portion of a levee in place, we recognized we could utilize the levee or remnant levee as part of the solution.
In this case, we discovered that a fundamentalproperty of water – its incompressibility – couldbe used to make a fabric system that resisteddeformation past some threshold.
Constrained horizontal deformation Constrained vertical deformation
Steep breach system
Shallow breach system
19
Demonstration - Stillwater, OK28 Sep 2008
280
20
Movie-Still Photo 1 of 12
21
Movie-Still Photo 2 of 12
22
Movie-Still Photo 3 of 12
23
Movie-Still Photo 4 of 12
281
24
Movie-Still Photo 5 of 12
25
Movie-Still Photo 6 of 12
26
Movie-Still Photo 7 of 12
27
Movie-Still Photo 8 of 12
282
28
Movie-Still Photo 9 of 12
29
Movie-Still Photo 10 of 12
30
Movie-Still Photo 11 of 12
31
Movie-Still Photo 12 of 12
283
321:16 scale – test at ERDC
1:4 scale – test at ARS-HERU
No “scale effects”are apparent intesting to date -
which suggeststhis new approachshould work wellat full scale.
Requirements forfabrics scale withthe depth of the breach and thetube diameter
SuccessfullyTested over20 times
284
33
Path AheadPlan a demonstration of a PLUG capable of stopping a rupture the size seen in Hurricane Katrina
Locate suitable locationConduct demonstration
Investigate Fabric improvementsDurabilityReparabilityScalability
CONOPs developmentDeployment requirementsStorage requirements
34Questions?
Questions?
285
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of HSARPA - SERRI Water-Filled Technologies for Rapid Repair of Levee Breaches by Dr. Don Resio
286
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title:
Geotubes for Structural Applications
Author:
Ed Trainer
Affiliation and Contact Information:
TenCate Geotube
3680 Mount Olive Road
Commerce, GA 30529
(ph) 706-693-1852
(email) [email protected]
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.12
287
Marine Structural Applications
1
Overview Applications Installation Dewatering
Shoreline Protection
2
288
Sand Dune Core
Wetlands Creation
Breakwaters
Jetties
Underwater Structures
Island CreationApplicationsMarine Dewatering
3
SAND DUNE CORE
Projects:
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Sea Isle City, New Jersey
NASA Wallops Isl., VA
Bolivar Peninsula, Texas
UnoCal, California
Typical Sand Dune Reinforcement Design
Geotube® Marine Applications
4
289
5,000 lin. feet of Geotube®
containers installed to protect the Boardwalk and billions of dollars in real estate.
Atlantic City, NJ
Installed 1994
5
Geotube® unit filled to a height of 6 feet with beach sand.
Atlantic City, NJ
6
290
Geotube® unit covered with sand and vegetated with dune grass to give the appearance of a natural dune.
Atlantic City, NJ
7
Following heavy storm activity in 1995, sand was washed from the ocean side of the Geotube® unit with no damage to the Boardwalk or adjacent property.
Atlantic City, NJ
8
291
After the storm, the sand over the Geotube® units was replaced. The units continue to protect the shoreline today.
Atlantic City, NJ
9
“Countless dollars in reconstruction were saved by the timely installation of Geotube®
[units],” The Press of Atlantic City, Aug.11,1995.
Atlantic City, NJ
10
292
4,000 lin. feet of Geotube®
containers protect the shoreline and the highway behind it.
Sea Isle City, NJ
Installed 1997
11
Geotube® container being filled by hopper method with imported sand.
Sea Isle City, NJ
12
293
Sand being placed in hopper with backhoe. Note that hopper discharges directly into the tube.
Sea Isle City, NJ
13
Geotube® unit filled to a height of 6 feet.
Sea Isle City, NJ
14
294
Offshore storm generating heavy wave activity as the tide rolls in.
Sea Isle City, NJ
15
Geotube® unit withstands heavy wave impact at high tide.
Sea Isle City, NJ
16
295
Geotube® unit and scour apron intact after extreme high tide and heavy wave attack.
Sea Isle City, NJ
17
Hurricane Ernesto and tropical storms badly eroded the beach and adjacent launch pad at NASA Wallace Flight Center in the Fall of 2006.
NASA Wallace Flight Center, Wallops Isl., VA
18
296
Beach was graded, a scour apron was placed, and anchor tubes filled with sand. 34’C x 200’L tubes were rolled out and pumped with sand slurry.
NASA Wallace Flight Center, Wallops Isl., VA
19
Imported sand and water from the surf were mixed together in a slurry pit and pumped to the Geotube® units.
NASA Wallace Flight Center, Wallops Isl., VA
20
297
A header system with multiple flexible lines fed the sand slurry into the geoports.
NASA Wallace Flight Center, Wallops Isl., VA
21
ISLAND CREATION
Projects:
Amwaj Islands, Bahrain
Buena Ventura, Colombia
Naviduct, The Netherlands
Geotube® Marine Applications
22
298
Located in the Arabian Gulf off the coast of Bahrain, the project will use more than 30 kilometers of 13m circumference Geotube®
containers to create the perimeter for the 2.79 million meter square island.
Amwaj Islands
23
The perimeter was created by filling two layers of Geotube®
containers to a total height of 4.6 meters.
Amwaj Islands
24
299
The Geotube®
containers are typically covered in sand, but in some areas, rip rap was used.
Amwaj Islands
25
The first Geotube®
container layer is installed to a height of 2.6 meters using a .4 meter diameter cutter head dredge.
Amwaj Islands
26
300
The second layer of Geotube® containers is filled by the hopper method, or with a sand induction pump to a height of 2.0 meters.
Amwaj Islands
27
The combined height is 4.6 meters.
When the islands are completed, most of the tubes will be covered with sand and a beach will be created in front for the private residences.
Amwaj Islands
28
301
The island is being created by filling inside the Geotube®
container perimeter with sand that is being dredged from the
surrounding area.
Amwaj Islands
29
The $1.5 billion development includes 2 marinas, 3 five-star hotels, 30 commercial office buildings, and more than 1,350 private residences with beach front locations.
Amwaj Islands
30
302
City required a dredge spoil disposal site within San Antonia Bay to contain 600,000 m3 dredged from navigation channel.
Buena Ventura, Colombia
31
1,100 lin. meters of 20 meter circumference by 3 meter high Geotube®
containers were installed to create the perimeter containment for the dredge disposal island.
Buena Ventura, Colombia
32
303
The Geotube®
containment project as it nears completion.
Buena Ventura, Colombia
33
Geotube® units formed the perimeter for dredge spoil area during lock construction.
Naviduct Geotube® Project, The Netherlands
Installed 1999‐2000
34
304
The Naviduct
Northern Guide-dam
Centre-line of new roadEnkhuizen - Lelystad
Fore-shorearea
Lake IJssel
Lake Marken
Dredging of 900,000 m3 of peat and sand for the lock
7,500 linear meters of tubes with a diameter of 3.92 meters.
Naviduct Geotube® Project
35
The Naviduct
Northern Guide-dam
Centre-line of new roadEnkhuizen - Lelystad
Fore-shorearea
Lake IJssel
Lake Marken
60,250 m2 of woven PP fabric 80 kN/m for the protection of the Geotube® units (against damage caused by dumping rock on top of them).
Naviduct Geotube® Project
36
305
37
Naviduct Geotube® Project
Geotube® units installed before rip rap placement.
38
306
Rip rap over Geotube®
unit as final erosion protection.
(note geotextile protection layer)
Naviduct Geotube® Project
39
Temporary dam in Morocco near Rabat
Edwin ZengerinkDate: 29 May 2006
307
Temporary Dam in Morocco
• Final Dam height 6 meter• 2 – 1 Geotube® Pyramid Structure• Geotube® units , 15.7m circumference, fill
height 3 m.• Geotube length approximately 70 meter.• Material used Geolon® PP 200 S, seam strength
160 kN/m1.• Finally covered with Nicoflex, impermeable
liner.41
Geotube Dam Cross Section
Geotube®
42
308
Building a temporary dam in Morocco
Geotube®
43
Geotube®
Building a temporary dam in Morocco
44
309
Geotube®
Building a temporary dam in Morocco
45
Geotube®
Building a temporary dam in Morocco
46
310
Geotube®
Building a temporary dam in Morocco
47
Incheon Grand Bridge
48
311
Geotube® brief
GeotubeGeotube®® solutionsolution ––as dykes for as dykes for reclamation of reclamation of temporary island temporary island for construction of for construction of bridgebridge
More than 14km of More than 14km of tubestubes
3m, 4m & 5m 3m, 4m & 5m diameterdiameter
Mostly 50m & 60m Mostly 50m & 60m long but some down long but some down to 15m to match to 15m to match profilingprofiling
49
Sand supply barge –1,800 m3
Work barge
Crane
Mixing tank
Water pumps
Excavators
Equipment
50
312
Booster pump at 450HP
Pumps 150 to 180 m3/hr
Equipment
Mixing tank Pumps Filling hose51
Key qualities: flowability, settling time, permeability
Coarse sand, low fines, maximum gravel size
Settling time of silica particles:
Gravel (10mm) – 1 sec
Coarse sand (1mm) –10 sec
Fine sand (0.1mm) –125 sec
Silt (0.01mm) – 108 min
Quality of sand for fill at site very good
Sand
52
313
FillingHydro-shaping: only water is pumped
This will ensure good top level finish and even cross-section profile
Quality achievable at site good
53
Sand mattress placed over 2 bottom tubes
2nd layer
54
314
2nd layer tube placed above sand mattress
2nd layer
55
Filled 2nd layer geotube
2nd layer
56
315
Completed 2nd layer on nearside of island
2nd layer
1st phase reclamation
view
57
Geotube®Protion of the Project completed
58
316
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Geotubes for Structural Applications by Ed Trainer.
317
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title:
Geotubes for Dewatering Applications
Author:
Ed Trainer
Affiliation and Contact Information:
TenCate Geotube
3680 Mount Olive Road
Commerce, GA 30529
(ph) 706-693-1852
(email) [email protected]
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.13
318
Dewatering Applications
1
Advantages:
Low cost
High volume
Custom sizing
Flexibility.
Geotube® Marine Dewatering Applications
2
319
MARINE DEWATERING
Projects:
Fox River
Badger Ammunition
Conner Creek
ConEdison
Geotube® Marine Dewatering Applications
3
Wisconsin
Challenge: Removal of 750,000-1 million yd3 of PCB contaminated river and lake sediments that were generated from a concentration of paper mills along the entire length of the lower Fox River.
Fox River Cleanup
Installed 2004-2006
4
320
Solution: In the initial trial, 60’circumference GT500 Geotube®
Dewatering Containers were used to contain, dewater and remove the first 20,000 yd3 of contaminated sediments from Little Lake Butte des Morts.
Fox River Cleanup
5
Solution: The Geotube®
dewatering process was so effective in PCB removal and dewatering (achieving >50% solids) that it was selected for the full-scale project.
Fox River Cleanup
6
321
A special 8” swinging ladder cutter head dredge without cables was used to dredge sediments to allow for pleasure boat traffic during operations.
Fox River Cleanup
7
A HDPE lined dewatering cell with an 18” aggregate drainage layer was installed to collect all of the effluent water from the Geotube®
containers.
Fox River Cleanup
8
322
Fox River Cleanup
Lay down area during installation.
9
Geotube® containers were stacked three and four layers high within the dewatering cell.
Fox River Cleanup
10
323
To date, successfully dewatered and treated 250,000 yards3 of PCB contaminated material for removal
Geotube® units kept pace with the dredge pumping >2,000 gpm.
Fox River Cleanup
11
Dewatered sediments averaged 50% total solids
Considerable savings over traditional methods of dewatering (ex. $100 less per cubic yard during pilot phase).
Fox River Cleanup
12
324
Challenge: Clean up contaminated sediments from harbor caused by run-off from munitions production.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
Installed 2001
13
Solution: 28,200 linear feet of 45’ circumference (2001) and 10,650 linear feet of 60’ circumference (2006) GT 500 Geotube®
containers were installed to dewater over 145,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
14
325
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers specified Geotube® technology as the best practice for dewatering contaminated marine dredge materials.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
15
The 25 acre harbor was dredged to remove contaminated sediment.
Containments included mercury, lead and copper.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
16
326
A manifold method of filling the containers was designed for the project.
Each branch could be individually adjusted to control sediment flow.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
17
Each pipe that leads to a Geotube® bag was fitted with a pinch valve to control flow.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
18
327
To aid in dewatering and consolidation, polymer was injected into the dredge spoil discharge line.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
19
Geotube® units were installed side by side. Each was able to dewater an average of 750 cubic yards of contaminated sediments.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
20
328
To maximize the allotted space for the dewatering project, three layers of Geotube® containers were added.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
21
The effluent was collected in a temporary lagoon which will eventually become a wetlands area.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
22
329
The clean lagoon water was used for irrigation.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
23
The Geotube® containers remain in the dewatering basin and were covered with 3’ of soil in 2002.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
24
330
In 2006, a new layer of Geotube® containers was installed over the top of the previous containers in the basin.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
25
The second phase will dewater 50,000 cubic yards.
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
26
331
Challenge: Removal of 75,000 cubic yards of biosolids, PCBs, heavy metals, and carbon fuel contaminated sediments from the combined storm sewer and sewage overflow canal.
Installed 2004
Conner Creek
27
Solution: 14,000 lin. ft. of 60’ circumference GT500 Geotube®
dewatering containers were used to contain, dewater and remove the contaminants from the dredged sediments.
Conner Creek
28
332
Geotube® containers were placed in a dewatering cell alongside Conner Creek.
Conner Creek
29
Clean effluent was returned to Conner Creek.
Conner Creek
30
333
Dewatered sediments were removed with a hydraulic excavator and taken to a local landfill.
Solids exceeded 47%.
Conner Creek
31
ConEdison
New York City
Challenge: Remove and dewater contaminated (PCB, hydrocarbons, etc.) sediments that collected in the cooling water intake tunnel for a power plant, while meeting strict EPA standards for effluent quality.
There was no available land for dewatering equipment of any type.
Installed 200632
334
ConEdison
New York City
Solution: Geotube®
dewatering technology, adapted to be operated completely on barges in the East River, adjacent to the site.
33
ConEdison
Google Maps Images Show Location
34
335
ConEdison
Google Maps Images Show Location
Two 50’ x 140’ barges
35
ConEdison
Google Maps Images Show Location
Two 50’ x 140’ barges
36
336
ConEdison
Geotube® units were custom sized to fit the barges. Two layers of Geotube® units were stacked in each barge.
37
ConEdison
The Smartfeed™ patented mobile chemical feed system provided automated polymer mixing and injection for the project.
Solids and flow were constantly changing, from 4% to 11% solids, and from 400 gpm to 1,500 gpm.
SmartFeed™ is a trademark of Mineral Processing Services, S. Portland, ME 38
337
ConEdison
The Smartfeed™ system tracked changes in solids and flow, adjusting polymer injection to optimum level every five seconds.
Smartfeed™ Trailer Geotube® units in barges
39
ConEdison
Effluent was clean enough for direct discharge without additional treatment.
40
338
ConEdison
In 45 days, 67% dry solids were achieved. Solids were removed from the barge and hauled to an EPA approved landfill in NJ.
41
ConEdison
Results: “Environmental concerns evaporated when it became clear the water retrieved from the silt and captured by the Geotube® containers was much cleaner than the natural water of the East River.”
42
339
ConEdison
Results: Silt volume was reduced from an estimated 52 barges (non-dewatered) to less than 1 barge of dewatered solids. The project was so successful that the same method was used for another facility upriver and approved for future applications.
43
340
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Geotubes for Dewatering Applications by Ed Trainer.
341
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop Nov 17-19 2008, Starkville MS
Presentation Title:Disposal of Coal Mine Slurry Using Geosynthetic Containers at North River Mine in Berry, Alabama
Author: Ed Trainer1 (Presenter) and Mike Watts2
Affiliation and Contact Information: 1: TenCate Geotube3680 Mount Olive RoadCommerce, GA 30529(ph) 706-693-1852(email) [email protected]:Private Consultant
Jointly Sponsored by: •Mississippi State University Civil and Environmental Engineering Department•Mississippi State University Office of Research •US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory
Section 6.14
342
Abstract:• The processing of raw coal to a saleable, clean coal requires many mine
operators to wash the run of mine product using a preparation plant. The fine rock particles leave the preparation plant suspended in water to form slurry. This waste slurry is normally disposed of via surface impoundments or injected into abandoned underground mine workings.
• When these primary methods of disposal are not available, the use of large geosynthetic containers for dewatering the slurry waste provides another means of waste processing. The use of geosynthetic containers for slurry dewatering is new to the industry and has successfully been implemented at Chevron Mining Inc. After testing was conducted and the necessary permits obtained, the North River Mine began using this unique and successful method to dispose of slurry.
• This presentation will explain the process and steps necessary for implementation.
11
Steps:
Preliminary Testing
Design and Permitting
Bag Field Construction
Filling the Bags
Reclamation
22
343
Preliminary Testing
August 2007
33
Two - 100 foot Geotube® test bags were utilized
44
344
Polymer mixing tanks and injection pump setup
55
66
Test was performed by pumping slurry directly from Preparation Plant Thickener to the test bags
Solids at 25 – 35% Over 80% minus 400 mesh
345
77
“Making Sausages”
88
346
99
Results: Solids captured and water filtered
1010
347
Design and Permitting
1111
Bag Field Cut and Fill Design
1212
348
Bag Field Plan View
1313
1414
349
Stacking Plan
1515
Bag Field Construction
1616
350
1717
Crushed Rock was placed over the lay down areas to actas a drainage medium beneath the containers:
- 6” of crushed sandstone blend- 3” crushed sandstone ( # 57)
1818
351
Rock DrainRock Drain
1919
Safety BermSafety Berm
2020
352
Final Grade to 1% slope draining to existing slurry pond
2121
Filling the Bags
2222
353
2323
North River Mine
GeoTube Filling Project
Response Plan for Rupture or Leak of GeoTube Bag Action Steps:
Move all workmen to a position of safety
Contain Material
Determine extent of rupture or leak
Continue to operate in unaffected area
Mitigate problem by repair, removal, or replacement as needed.
Investigate cause
Clean up area if needed
Report incident to Project Manager Notes: Leaks rarely occur (maybe 1%). Care in handling bags is foremost. The safety factor of the bags at maximum pressure is over 4.0. All bag fields and work areas drain to the large pond effectively containing possible spills.
The Geotube® Containers used were 60 - 70 Feet in circumference and in various lengths
2424
354
An 8-inch Cutterhead Dredge was used to pump the slurry from the surface impoundment to the Geotube® Containers
2525
Polymer Mixing and Injection Station
2626
355
A Manifold System was used to allow the filling of more than one tube at a time
2727
Bags Dewatering
2828
356
2929
In order to utilize a smaller foot print for larger volumes of material, the Geotube® Containers were stacked four layers high in pyramid fashion
3030
357
3131
The construction schedule of bag fields overlapped so that therewas no lost time in moving from one area to the next
3232
358
3333
Bag Field II
Bag Field I
Bag Field III
3434
359
3535
Retired Bag Field II Tier II
Ready for reclamation
Covering Bags____
Reclamation
3636
360
Once retired the fields were immediately covered and reclaimed
3737
When the material inside the Geotube®
Containers reach a moisture content of 35%, they could be covered and buried in place
3838
361
A layer of sand and a layer of rock was placed around the edgesof the bag field for drainage
3939
4040
362
Bags were then covered with material using low ground pressure equipment
4141
4242
363
Reclaimed Bag Field III
4343
Ready for seed and mulch
4444
364
Project Statistics:
January – August 2008
1750 cubic yards per day
240 Geotube® Containers
42,000 combined linear feet of bags
5 cubic yards of slurry per linear foot of bag
Moisture 30 – 35% after dewatering
Very stable
4545
Results:
Over 200,000 yards of slurry waste disposal
No Safety Incidents
No Environmental Incidents
4646
365
Thank you to the following for their combined efforts to make this project a success:
Alabama Surface Mining Commission
J.F. Brennan Co., Inc.
Office of Surface Mining
PERC Engineering Co., Inc.
TenCate Geosynthetics
Whittemore Farms Excavation
4747
366
2008 Geotextile Tubes Workshop was conducted as part of a research project funded by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through UT Battelle at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI).
End of Disposal of Coal Mine Slurry Using Geosynthetic Containers at North River Mine in Berry, Alabama by Ed Trainer and Mike Watts.
367